Alvaro said more or less what I feel. We already have no less than 3 experimental RFCs dedicated to specifics of radio networks. IMO by implementing selected bits of those RFCs such as incremental Hellos one can achieve effectiveness greater than in this proposal. It is true that proposed solution is simple (simpler than any bit of MANET RFCs). But on the other hand problem it solves is also very specific. It is still not clear to me if there will be wide need/interest in implementing this narrowly specialized enhancement. Also, if MANET extensions pick up popularity and become widely implemented then more complex but more efficient solution will win.
Anton On 01/06/2011 09:58 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of >> Acee Lindem >> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 1:19 PM > ... > > Acee: > > Happy New Year!! > >> Speaking as WG Co-Chair, >> >> I think we are ready to ask whether or not we want to make this a WG >> document. If you feel one way or another, please share your opinion. > > I'm going to say "no". > > While I do believe that the definition of this type of hybrid interface > is interesting, the proposed solution has significant limitations > related to its application to "radio networks". It is constrained to a > specific case (not the general case). To quote Jeffrey form a prior > thread: "The premise is that we have a broadcast network but one can > reach some stations with a metric that is different from when reaching > others. If that premise is not satisfied, then it's a different topic > (and out of the scope)." > > Also, an interface with similar characteristics has already been > defined, implemented and deployed in radio networks. Take a look at the > OSPF-MANET Interface definition in rfc5820 -- I'm quoting a little piece > of the text below. Note that the OSPF-MANET interface can satisfy the > premise above as well as other types of configurations. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > ------------------- > > 3.1. OSPF-MANET Interface > > > Interfaces are defined as the connection between a router and one of > its attached networks [OSPF]. Four types of interfaces have been > defined and supported in [OSPF] and [OSPFv3]: broadcast, Non- > Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA), point-to-point, and point-to- > multipoint. > > The point-to-multipoint model has been chosen to represent MANET > interfaces. (The features designed in this document MAY be included > on other interface types as appropriate.) The MANET interface allows > the following: > > o OSPF treats all router-to-router connections over the MANET > interface as if they were point-to-point links. > > o Link metric can be set on a per-neighbor basis. > > o Broadcast and multicast can be accomplished through Layer 2 > broadcast or Layer 2 pseudo-broadcast. > > * The MANET interface supports Layer 2 broadcast if it is able to > address a single physical message to all of the attached > neighbors. One such example is 802.11. > > * The MANET interface supports Layer 2 pseudo-broadcast if it is > able to pick up a packet from the broadcast queue, replicate > the packet, and send a copy over each point-to-point link. One > such example is Frame Relay. > > o An API must be provided for Layer 3 to determine the Layer 2 > broadcast capability. Based on the return of the API, OSPF > classifies the MANET interfaces into the following three types: > MANET broadcast, MANET pseudo-broadcast, and MANET non-broadcast. > > o Multicast SHOULD be used for OSPF packets. When the MANET > interface supports Layer 2 broadcast or pseudo-broadcast, the > multicast process is transparent to OSPF. Otherwise, OSPF MUST > replicate multicast packets by itself. > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
