[Ospf-manet] Regarding MPR-OSPF

[Richard Ogier <[e-mail]>]

Philippe,

I noticed two possible problems with your GTNetS code for MPR-OSPF.
The first one regards the following code in need_adjacency():

#ifdef OSPF6_MANET_MPR_ADJ_REDUC_OSPF_MPR
        if (on->ospf6_if->synchNode)
          return 1;

        if (ospf6_lookup_relay_selector(on->ospf6_if, on->router_id))
          return 1;
        else
          return 0;
#endif //OSPF6_MANET_MPR_ADJ_REDUC_OSPF_MPR

The above code code says that the router forms an adjacency with
a neighbor only if the router is a synch node or the neighbor
is an MPR selector.  This can cause unidirectional adjacencies,
as explained below.  (A similar problem with the OSPF-MDR code
was discovered and corrected over a year ago.)

Suppose node i forms an adjacency with node j either because
node i is a synch node or node j is an MPR selector.
Suppose that node j later misses a few Hellos from node i,
so that node j changes the state of neighbor i to Down and then
to 2-Way, without sending a Hello that indicates neighbor i is Down
(or perhaps node j sends one such Hello that is not received by i).
Node j does not consider node i adjacent, since j is not a
synch node and i is not an MPR selector. (The need_adjacency()
condition is not symmetric.)

Also suppose that node i never misses any Hellos from node j (or misses
only one Hello from j).  Then node i will still think node j is fully
adjacent, even though node j does not consider node i adjacent.
Thus, a unidirectional adjacency can exist.

Therefore, it is necessary for the need_adjacency condition to be
symmetric. I.e., node i should consider node j adjacent if and only
if node j considers node i adjacent. More specifically, need_adjacency()
should also return true if the neighbor is a synch node or an MPR.
(Notice that the need_adjacency condition is symmetric in RFC 2328.)

The other problem I noticed regards the selection of synch routers.
Your GTNetS code does not agree with your draft.
In your code, only one router in the entire network (area) is
selected as a synch node, i.e., the one with the largest RID.
This does not agree with your draft, which says:

 >   A router decides it is a synch router if and only if:
 >   o  the router is a wireless router that has the highest willingness
 >      in its neighborhood (in case of ties, the router that also has the
 >      greatest ID is elected).


Also, what if the router with the largest (willingness, RID) is not
a MANET router?  And what if you have multiple MANET interfaces,
in addition to non-MANET interfaces?
I think you are safer if you consider only MANET neighbors on a
given interface when deciding whether a router is a synch router
(as in your draft).
I realize that this would result in more adjacencies and more
overhead, but it may also improve robustness.
Also, if you select only a single synch router (as in your code), it is
not clear how to extend this to multiple interfaces or networks that
include non-MANET interfaces.  Please let us know which rule you
plan to use for selecting synch routers.

Richard


_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet