Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
Richard Ogier <rich.ogier@earthlink.net> Thu, 18 January 2007 22:46 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7g1f-0005VT-1C; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:46:31 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7g1e-0005VO-30 for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:46:30 -0500
Received: from pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.72]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7g1c-0007FC-Pv for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:46:30 -0500
Received: from dialup-4.245.102.78.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([4.245.102.78]) by pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1H7g1Z-0004ZV-00; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:46:26 -0500
Message-ID: <45AFF8C2.3040705@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:46:26 -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: <45A43BD4.5090609@inria.fr> <45A6C59D.1070105@earthlink.net> <45A7A448.4030707@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <45A7A448.4030707@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
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 Baccelli wrote: > Hi Richard, > > We are happy to see that you join the consensus to push the 3 current > proposals to experimental status. That way the community will gather > experience by mixing the various mechanisms for flooding reduction, > topology reduction and adjacency reduction. > > We agree that multicast decreases the impact of adjacency reduction. > It is one of the factors that enables MPR-OSPF to perform that well > while keeping strict OSPF adjacency mechanisms. > > Regards, > Emmanuel Emmanuel, (I have been away from my email for the last week.) It's amazing how you twist my words to conclude that I have joined "consensus" to push the 3 current proposals to experimental status. This twisting of words is one reason why I do NOT want to engage in arguments with INRIA for the next year or so. Another reason is that you are trying to avoid a fair comparison, which is why I had to work hard to write code for your MPR-based adjacency reduction. My points were that your main contributions - MPR-based LSA reduction and multicast retransmitted LSAs - do not by themselves constitute an OSPF extension, but are techniques that can be applied to either ORs or MDRs (and it is not yet clear that either provides any significant advantage for MDR). Also, your MPR-based adjacency reduction is simply not scalable, as was clearly shown in my simulations. I am currently running simulations for 80 and 100 nodes to add to my previous simulation results. Some may say that INRIA's solution is "good enough" to become an experimental WG draft, but I disagree with that because it does not scale to dense 100-node networks, as do the other solutions, and INRIA has not shown that it scales to such networks. If you can show that it scales as well (or almost as well) as the other two solutions, then I would agree that it can be advanced to experimental. But I don't think this is possible without major changes. And this leads to the problem that Joe Macker warned about at the last meeting, i.e., we want to avoid major changes to the drafts once they become experimental WG drafts. Otherwise, we may never converge. Since your solution is not currently as scalable as the other solutions, maybe you are planning to later to modify it later to make it more scalable, e.g., by using the database signature exchange mechanism. As Joe Macker advised, we want to avoid making such major changes later. Therefore, any major changes should be made BEFORE your draft is advanced to experimental, and simulations should be run to compare the finalized version to the other proposals. (On the other hand, using the database signature method might have the disadvantage of being too much of a change from legacy OSPFv3, but that is a different issue.) In summary, once you have finalized your draft (so that no major changes will be necessary), then let's compare it to the other two solutions. If it is almost as scalable as MDR, then I would have no objection to your draft becoming an experimental WG draft. Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > 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