Re: [manet] Working group last call for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis and draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization

[Thomas Clausen <[e-mail]>]

Abdussalam,

If you, in your implementation of NHDP/OLSRv2, do not want to include this optimization, then you can simply decide to not implement it. Your implementation will, then, still be fully interoperable with an implementation that does include this optimization -- this is described in, for example, the applicability statement of the document.

However, in the situations clearly described in the document (for example, in paragraph 4 of the introduction), your implementation will then take longer time to recover from certain types of link failure.

The exact benefit from including this optimization in your deployments of NHDP/OLSRv2 are for you to evaluate -- nobody can do that in your place: we do not know the frequency of the type of link failures where this optimization is effective in your deployment specifics.

There are, however, no "downsides" to implementing this optimization, no situations in which it degrades performance, and -- as we indicated -- it's very light to implement. So even if you do not expect to benefit from the optimization, then it'd probably be silly to not do so. 

Now, I am not sure why you talk about "optimum", or "best performance", I do not believe that anybody has claimed such absolutes.

Thomas

> On 09 Aug 2014, at 13:25, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Friday, August 8, 2014, Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>> Adrian
>> 
>> Thanks for the effort in unearthing this. I take the same view as Stan. I will note that I have implemented this, but don't have any publishable performance results. But as I said, I agree with Stan on the lack of necessity of this.
> 
>  The draft is updating two standards, and promoting better performance. I remember when the first present of the draft at IETF 89, I asked you of its difference, and the answer was no much code difference just performance.
> 
>  When we promote optimum that means best performance? So how can this WG get sure of that optimum behavior, do we just follow the author/implementor, is that IETF practice.  The results can be necessary to prove it's a suitable standard update. If you want it to be not necessary to give results then no need to update our standards, just a new standard extension. 
> 
> AB
>