Re: [manet] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12: (with COMMENT)

The reactivity is local, unlike the reactivity of, say, AODV. So while it introduces a delay (and possible issues of buffering, and possible effects on, say, TCP) it does not introduce any routing instability. It's not mixing two ways to calculate a path (which would not be good).

(If the calculation is fast enough, you wouldn't even know it had happened.)

(Personally I wouldn't have introduced the reactive complication, but the designers/implementers wanted it.)

--  
Christopher Dearlove
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com
chris@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk is dead

> On 14 May 2017, at 12:51, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This protocol can be mixing between reactive and proactive processings which is not stable which is not reliable, see the draft mentions:
> 
> Routers in the same network may choose either proactive or reactive multipath calculation independently according to their computation resources.
> 
> I think the protocol must only support one calculation for each path,
> making mixed reactive and proactive per path is not stable. While we know that OLSRv2 is a proactive protocol so if we use source routing as in this protocol it should do only reactive calculation that makes it stable in the dynamic-networks like manet. IMHO, using reactive and proactive independently seems strange in manet routing environment. I advise to look into conditions of its theories because it seems that this multipath routing in for fixed-wireless-networks not for manets.
> 
> AB
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com> wrote:
>> Dear Suresh,
>> 
>> Thanks very much for the comments.
>> Alvaro raised the same issue before — we will use the type 3 header in the next revision.
>> 
>> best
>> 
>> Jiazi
>> 
>> 
>> > On 10 May 2017, at 04:49, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>> > draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12: No Objection
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > COMMENT:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > I find it really strange that this document uses an experimental Routing
>> > header type codepoint (254) but requires the processing to be same as the
>> > RPL Routing header (Type 3). Is there a reason things are done this way
>> > instead of just using the Type 3 header as is?
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > manet mailing list
>> > manet@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> manet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet