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

What do you mean by local reactive, I did not understand. Is our routing
having local and not local, if yes then why don't we say in the draft local
reactivity?

AB

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Christopher Dearlove <
christopher.dearlove@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>