Alvaro, 1. does it require N or two adjacencies for a non-DR/BDR? I assumed N? 2. what exactly does one have to implement for the scenario targeted by the draft?
Thanks. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 5:26 PM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; Acee Lindem; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type > > > 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
