Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] DT Direction...

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

>
>I am OK with deferring unreliable (periodic) flooding until
>we see how far we can get with acknowledged flooding.  The
>point of our simulation-based contribution was to convey that,
>in our recent experience, we have not been able to approach 
>the overhead savings offered by periodic flooding.  Therefore,
>I would be partial to a solution that keeps the door open to
>a future periodic flooding mechanism of some sort (whether
>it be by OLSR-like flooding semantics, or manipulation of
>retransmission timeout intervals like Richard previously 
>suggested).
>

For the record, as stated in the current version of my draft
(and in my emails), I no longer propose manipulation
of retransmission timeout intervals, but prefer the
hybrid approach in which the source decides whether to send
ackable LSAs or periodic non-ackable LSAs, depending on how
often the LSA changes. Since reliable flooding is more efficient
in low-mobility wireless networks, and periodic unreliable
flooding is more efficient in high-mobility networks, I think
a hybrid approach is best. But I have no problem focusing on
reliable flooding in Phase I.

Richard

>
>
>Tom 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
>Ospf-wireless-design@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design
>

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