Re: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> IMHO, it doesn't matter what you think is a "natural" and "unnatural"
>> extension to OSPF. What should matter is the requirements, and the way
>> to solve those requirements.
> 
> - Let's say OSPF-MDR is a natural way to extend OSPF's broadcast
> interface for MANET type physical medium. It should be an acceptable

Let's not use the term "natural" at all. It's completely orthogonal to
the discussion.

> If you agree that OSPF is about maintaining a connected/biconnected
> adjacency graph that is rooted towards its leaders (DR and BDR) which

I don't. There's no such thing as "leaders" in OSPF. There is such a
thing in Spanning Tree--perhaps you're mixing up ST and OSPF? Or you're
confusing the SPF tree, with it's root, with the concept of adjacencies?
DRs and BDRs are optimizations for broadcast links--OSPF would work just
fine without them. Do you know the history of p-nodes in IS-IS?

Hence, a "two hop extension" to OSPF's DR's isn't "natural" in any sense
of the term, and it's not necessarily, the best way to extend the protocol.

Again, let's get past the pejorative terms. Somehow, we've forgotten
history and context here. There's no such thing as a "natural"
extension, it doesn't matter how many times anyone repeats it on list.

:-)

Russ

- --
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFIa+oER27sUhU9OQRAtF5AJwP+LbvcwZJGRABFtEVcrIQnLoCtACghVLj
S3B6yIjNPjvq9Dha1KF7tCY=
=P0k+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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