WG chairs and members, As Acee mentioned below, this optimization is a reasonable, simple and general solution for a valid probem, and is really not conflicting with MANET.
As a result, we would like to request again for WG's acceptance of this work. Thanks. Jeffrey, Nischal, Lili. > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:10 PM > To: Nischal Sheth > Cc: Alvaro Retana (aretana); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
