Aton, > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Smirnov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:58 PM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type > > Hi Jeffrey, > > > We developed the solution for a real network situation
It is difficult to go into too much details, but there are real examples of true-broadcast radio networks where the bw/delay is different between different pairs of radios. > > It's a bit hard to see value of the proposal without knowing > more about > possible network scenarios where this solution may be applicable. > Situations when cost to each neighbor is different usually > mean that L2 > paths to them are different. Bunch of separate L2 connections are > grouped together and presented to OSPF on L3 as single multiaccess > interface - but underneath it is L2 point-to-multipoint network. So > saying that Hello packet propagation is more optimal is not true - > replication is just moved from OSPF to lower level. Even so you still have the benefit of reduced number of adjacencies. > > Thinking of network solutions which could benefit from assigning > different cost to each neighbor I come up with things like VPLS, Metro > Ethernet. May be fixed radio networks. But these all are L2 p2mp > networks. Multiaccess is just emulated and benefits of using it are > ephemeral. Multiacess could be emulated in such a way that minimum replication happens - in that case the benefit is real. The key is that the lower layer is presented to L3 as multi-access and we could/should take advantage of it. Thanks. Jeffrey > > Anton > > > On 11/22/2010 05:36 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I presented the draft > http://www.ietf.org/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01 .txt in Beijing (slides > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/ospf-9.ppt) and it > was deferred to the mailing list on whether the problem is > worth the working group effort (some who reviewed the draft > agreed that the proposed solution is reasonable for the problem). > > > > I'd like to request folks to review the draft/slides and > voice your opinion. We developed the solution for a real > network situation and would like to see that it gets > consensus and standardized so that more operators/vendors can > benefit from this. > > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
