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

Hi AB, 

As Chris said, reactive/proactive approach has nothing to do with stability you mentioned. It’s totally a router’s internal process — the outsiders won’t even know the difference. 

best

Jiazi

> On 14 May 2017, at 13:51, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet