Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report

Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> here is a report containing the GTNetS simulation results for the 
> MPR-OSPF code : 
> http://self.d.free.fr/MPR-OSPF/mpr-ospf-simulations-report.pdf
>
> Regards,
> Emmanuel
>
Your report compares the following:
1. OR with no adjacency reduction and with full LSAs.
2. Same as 1, but retransmitted LSAs are multicast.
3. Same as 2, but with MPR LSA reduction.

The bugs I mentioned apply mostly to LSA reduction.
Your results show that 2 results in significantly less overhead than 1,
i.e., that it helps to multicast retransmitted LSAs when full-topology
adjacencies are used (no adjacency reduction).
That is an interesting result, but the technique of multicasting
retransmitted LSAs can be applied to any approach, including MDRs.
So it says nothing about the MPR approach versus the MDR approach.
Also, your results do not consider adjacency reduction.  In particular,
it is not clear that multicasting retransmitted LSAs is beneficial
when adjacency reduction is used.
To answer this question for MDR, I plan to run simulations with
multicast retransmitted LSAs, with and without adjacency reduction.
As I mentioned in my post two days ago, this technique can easily
be allowed as an option if it is found to improve performance in some
scenarios.

Also, since any method for LSA reduction can be used with any of
the proposed extensions, your results for MPR LSA reduction
do not say anything about the MPR approach versus the MDR approach.
At some point, I would like to compare min-cost LSAs with MPR-based
LSAs for MDR.

Richard

>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
Ospf-manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet