> From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:06 PM ... > Indeed we wanted to distinguish from the OSPF MANET interface. > > When the underlying network is clearly not a MANET but a broadcast one, > there is no need to implement the complicated procedures specified in > RFC 5820 - a simple enhancement as specified in this draft will do. It > simplifies operators' job (monitoring and debugging) as well.
You don't need to implement everything in the rfc to support the interface functionality. Most of the work in the rfc is oriented at reducing the overhead on the wire (Incremental Hellos, Smart Peering) or at addressing the cases where not all the nodes are visible (Overlapping Relays). If you don't care about reducing the overhead and can guarantee that all the nodes are visible, then the interface definition is enough. ;-) That reduces to taking advantage of the broadcast characteristics for flooding, but using p2p adjacencies -- which would be a lot easier to operate because it is clearer what the relationship between the peers w/the different metrics is. In my mind the problem in your document is already solved. Alvaro. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
