Speaking as a WG member, I really don't see this hybrid interface optimization as conflicting with the problem space covered by the MANET draft. Thanks, Acee On Feb 10, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nischal Sheth wrote:
> On 1/6/2011 2:26 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Hi Alvaro, > > If one were to use just the interface definition, we would end up with a > full mesh of adjacencies between all routers on the broadcast network. > This is less desirable compared to the hybrid interface which requires > adjacencies only to the DR/BDR. > > One would need to implement Smart Peering in order to reduce the number > of adjacencies on the MANET interface. However, doing so would result > in suboptimal routing unless you implement Unsynchronized Adjacencies. > Finally, Unsynchronized Adjacencies requires a protocol extension which > is defined only for OSPFv3. > > Based on the points above, I don't consider the MANET Interface to be a > true superset of the hybrid interface to solve the problem at hand. > > -Nischal >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
