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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel Baccelli [mailto:Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:10 AM
> To: ospf-manet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] URL for MPR-extension software
> 
> Richard,
> 
> We do think that our draft provides a standard way to get topology 
> reduction, which is indeed present in none of the other drafts.
> We showed during our last presentation at the IETF that topology 
> reduction is at least as effective as adjacency reduction, if 
> not more. 
> This is the point that was made, based on the results we published.

Emmanuel,
On this point, our results have suggested that adjacency reduction is
complementary to advertised topology reduction, and provides as much or
more overhead reduction depending on the setting.

For instance, Figure 4 of our Milcom 2006 paper shows a comparison of
three variants of Overlapping Relays:
i) full adjacencies, full advertised topology
ii) smart peering adjacencies, full advertised topology
iii) smart peering adjacencies, minimal LSAs (reporting only
adjacencies)

The largest reduction in overhead occurs when moving from case i) to
ii), and additional savings in moving from ii) to iii).

If you would like more details, this is all available on our server at:
http://hipserver.mct.phantomworks.org/ietf/ospf/

> We showed during our last presentation at the IETF that topology 
> reduction is at least as effective as adjacency reduction, if 
> not more. 

I just reviewed the slides in the proceedings and didn't see any
simulation results pertaining to adjacency reduction.  What are you
referring to?

Thanks,
Tom

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