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

Aniket Desai <adesai@opnet.com> Wed, 31 January 2007 22:29 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCNxh-0007oL-Iv; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:29:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCNxf-0007mf-E2 for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:29:51 -0500
Received: from enterprise58.opnet.com ([192.104.65.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCNxe-0004ey-5C for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:29:51 -0500
Received: from wtn12131.opnet.com (wtn12131.opnet.com [172.16.12.131]) by enterprise58.opnet.com (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0VMR7KH024948; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:27:08 -0500
Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20070131171954.0284c1a8@mailserver.opnet.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:29:38 -0500
To: ospf-manet@ietf.org, ospf-manet@ietf.org
From: Aniket Desai <adesai@opnet.com>
Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
In-Reply-To: <E1HBJri-0004Gw-Et@megatron.ietf.org>
References: <E1HBJri-0004Gw-Et@megatron.ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-OPNET-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: adesai@opnet.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Richard,

MPR-OSPF ensures that each advertized link is synchronized. This is 
why there is not a drastic improvement with the adjacency reduction option.

We agree that enough was exchanged about the subject: it is not 
possible to compare the different proposals with mere simulations. In 
particular, we must evaluate the functions that are provided by the 
different mechanisms, and not only raw overhead in a single scenario. 
Experience must be gathered with MPR, MDR and OR in order to really 
compare these approaches. So let's do that!

Emmanuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

 From the previous emails, it seemed that Dr. Ogier suggested the use 
of simulations as a "tie breaker" to even administer a proposal to 
experimental status. Simulations may not be the most accurate 
representation of the reality to the last bit, but they provide 
sufficient framework to cheaply evaluate and compare different 
proposals against each other. I believe it should be possible to 
design a series of parametric runs (changing node density, changing 
mobility, changing network size, changing radio range etc etc.) to 
extensively compare all the proposals against each other. All the 
criticism about considering only a single/limited set of scenarios 
gets nullified when one has conducted a parametric run, and I don't 
see any way other than the simulations to do this.

Thanks,

Aniket



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