Sorry - forgot to emphasize that the proposed optimization only applies to true-broadcast networks (including but not limited to wired networks), and is not intended for true-MANET networks.
Thanks. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:48 PM > To: Acee Lindem; Abhay Roy (akr) > Cc: Alvaro Retana (aretana); [email protected]; Nischal Sheth; Lili Wang > Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type > > 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
