Re: [Ospf-manet] URL for MPR-extension software

Richard Ogier <> Thu, 21 December 2006 19:18 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxTQg-00020k-6b; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:18:10 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxTQe-0001ze-Jk for; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:18:08 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxTQc-0008LO-AP for; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:18:08 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1GxTQS-0000bg-00; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:17:57 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:17:49 -0800
From: Richard Ogier <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 (emach0202)
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emmanuel Baccelli <>
Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] URL for MPR-extension software
References: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of OSPFv3 extensions supporting MANET <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


You are STILL avoiding my main question:
When do you plan to release code that implements adjacency
reduction based on MPRs, as described in your draft?

Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:

> Richard,
> Adjacency reduction is indeed an interesting approach that is present 
> in various ways in the three solutions OR, MPR and MDR. The 
> specificity of the MPR solution is that it brings topology reduction 
> too,  in a way compliant with the usual "route on adjacencies only". 
> The draft and the code we released shows that the MPR solution is 
> simple and valid.

Right, but your method for MPR-based adjacency reduction is not competitive
with the other proposals, since it will not scale nearly as well.
This is probably why you are not presenting any results for adjacency
reduction, and did not include adjacency reduction in your code.

> You say you still need to experiment with your code, and we all need 
> to experiment with the code. I agree: that is why the three solutions 
> are going to experimental status, as decided by the working group. So 
> I don't understand where you are getting at?

I don't think it has been decided that all three solutions are going to
experimental status.  See Acee's post to the OSPF list on 11/13/06
and Tom Henderson's response on 11/14/06.  You need to provide simulation
code (including adjacency reduction) so we can evaluate your proposal to
see if it is competitive with the other proposals.
I don't think it would be fair to give you a "free pass".
(I worked very hard in the last two years to design OSPF-MDR and show
it scales to more than 100 nodes.)

> By the way, regarding adjacency reduction, it must be pointed out that 
> contrary to what you claim the available code for the MPR solution is 
> compliant with the draft, since adjacency reduction is specified as 
> optional.

As I mentioned, your method for LSA reduction can be applied to the other
proposals, and in fact your GTNetS code simply modified Cisco's OR solution
to use MPR-based LSAs.  Adjacency reduction is an important feature of your
proposal.  The other two drafts have been fully implemented in GTNetS, 
omitting any important features.  (Adjacency reduction will also be optional
in OSPF-MDR, so does that mean I don't have to implement it?) If you want to
omit adjacency reduction from your draft, and propose only a method for LSA
reduction, then that might be a possibility.  It would not scale to 
nearly as
many nodes as the other proposals, but as I mentioned, it can be applied to
the other proposals.


> Regards,
> Emmanuel
> _______________________________________________
> Ospf-manet mailing list

Ospf-manet mailing list