Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
Richard Ogier <rich.ogier@earthlink.net> Sun, 28 January 2007 23:55 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBJri-0004Gm-91; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:55:18 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBJrg-0004GB-3h for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:55:16 -0500
Received: from pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.70]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBJre-00028B-RK for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:55:16 -0500
Received: from dialup-4.245.101.172.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([4.245.101.172]) by pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1HBJrc-0007eW-00; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:55:12 -0500
Message-ID: <45BD37DF.1050005@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:55:11 -0800
From: Richard Ogier <rich.ogier@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
References: <45B5D944.9010303@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <45B5D944.9010303@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Cc: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of OSPFv3 extensions supporting MANET <ospf-manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf-manet>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf-manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-manet-bounces@ietf.org
Emmanuel, Regarding your simulation results, it looks like using MPR adjacency reduction does not reduce overhead much, and based on the simulation results I presented recently, MDR with adjacency reduction has much lower overhead. I think you would have to make major changes to your draft before it is competitive with MDR. For example, you will at least have to select MPRs (and "path MPRs" for LSAs) to be more stable, which has not yet been described in your draft. The MDR draft does not need major changes, but I am making changes to improve readability, to simplify the BMDR algorithm, and other minor changes such as improving min-cost LSAs. This does not change the core methods for flooding and adjacency reduction, which have been stable for about two years. My point was that, since MPR adjacency reduction is not scalable, the main contributions of your draft are MPR LSA reduction and multicast retransmitted LSAs (the latter of which is not new and was considered in version 00 of the MDR draft), and that these two contributions do not by themselves constitute an OSPF extension, but are techniques that can be applied to either ORs or MDRs. I mentioned that I will experiment with multicast retransmitted LSAs to see if they improve the performance of MDRs in some scenarios, and if they do they can be included as an option. This would be a minor change to the MDR draft. After we have both finalized our drafts, we should continue our discussion then, and perform a fair simulation comparison. Until then, I suggest we take a break from this discussion. Richard Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Dear Richard, > > We agree that there is no need to argue. The MPR-OSPF is a consistent > extension of OSPFv3 that uses flooding reduction, topology reduction and > adjacency reduction based on MPR, with a stable specification ready for > experimental status. > > You suggest that you could introduce some changes in MDR, taking > advantage of the experimental status. We do not think that it is needed > to introduce the major changes you mentionned (such as including MPR > topology reduction or multicast) since they are already featured in the > MPR-OSPF extension. However, if you think MDR needs major changes, then > MDR is not ready for experimental status. > > Emmanuel > > > _______________________________________________ > Ospf-manet mailing list > Ospf-manet@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet > _______________________________________________ Ospf-manet mailing list Ospf-manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Aniket Desai
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Regarding OSPF MDR Philippe Jacquet
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Philippe Jacquet
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Regarding MPR-OSPF Richard Ogier