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
- 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