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

Another important property of MDRs is that they are source independent,
like DRs but unlike MPRs.   If you want to generalize DRs to multihop
networks, it makes sense to make them source dependent.  The draft
draft-baker-manet-ospf-problem-statement-00
observed that DRs do not work properly in multihop networks, but
frankly did not succeed in generalizing them.  Instead, it was
decided to use MPRs, which are source dependent and therefore do
not generalize DRs.

More comments below.

Russ White wrote:

>-----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?
>

OSPF would work just fine without DRs and BDRs?
OSPF would not be scalable without DRs and BDRs (assuming the network
includes broadcast links).  Just as DRs make OSPF scalable,
MDRs make OSPF-MDR scalable,

>
>
>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.
>

Now that we have explained what we mean by "natural extension", you will
know what we mean when we say it, even if you don't like the term.  :-)

Richard

P.S. I see that Aniket has also replied to your message, but I have
not yet read his reply.

>
>
>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
>
>

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