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

[Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]>]

Hi AB, 

I think we have already made it clear in the draft:

> The reactive operation is local to the router and no additional routing control messages exchange is required. 



best

Jiazi

> On 19 May 2017, at 14:46, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jiazi,
> 
> Routing processes are in all  routers (do you mean other than that?), so what you mean by internal, do you mean there is routing process outside the router???, or as you may mean external process from routers. I think all processes happen in the routers. I am sorry that I got confused,,,,
> 
> AB
> 
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Jiazi Yi <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
> 
>