Richard: You're right to say that the MANET solution can handle the special case of a single-hop broadcast network, if one was encountered. The deployment lesson that we're taking from that scenario is that it is operationally simpler to work w/one type of interface: one neighbor discovery process, one interface description model, etc...specially in cases where the ability to configure and troubleshoot the network in the field is greatly reduced by both access to the nodes as well as the potential abilities of the operators, which is the case in some of the deployments of rfc5820.
IOW, in a mobile network that may include multi-hop and single-hop interfaces, it is operationally preferred to deploy just one type of interface model. Thanks! Alvaro. From: Richard Ogier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:19 PM To: Retana, Alvaro Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document In my opinion, the hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp draft is a simple and perfect solution to this problem: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt This has been discussed and some of us agree with this. For example, Jeffrey Zhang's post dated 4/11/2011 summarizes some of the arguments. Although both RFC 5820 (OSPF-OR) and RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks and thus solve the same problem as the hybrid-bcast-p2mp draft, the hybrid draft is clearly the simplest solution, involving minimal changes to OSPF. If the network is definitely a single-hop network, so that each router is one hop from all other routers, then there is no need for a MANET solution. Otherwise, we need a MANET solution, which will also handle the special case of a single-hop network if by chance the network is single-hop (and this can be mentioned in the MANET draft). But I would never apply a MANET solution if the network is definitely a single-hop network; I would go with the simpler solution in the hybrid draft. For this reason, I don't think it makes sense to propose applying an OSPF-MANET extension to the case of a single-hop broadcast network. But if someone can describe a situation where it makes sense to do this, please do so. Richard Retana, Alvaro wrote: Hi! Following up on the WG meeting in Prague... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop A brief poll at the meeting found no objection to this update to rfc 5820. This e-mail is the formal request for adoption as a WG document. Just like rfc 5820, the intended status is Experimental. Thoughts/comments? Thanks! Alvaro. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
