RE: [Ospf-wireless-design] OSPF Wireless Design Team Minutes

["Henderson, Thomas R" <[e-mail]>]

Acee, I agree with your summary, as modified by Joe's post.

(Note that it is officially "GTNetS")

Thanks,
Tom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:49 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Ospf-wireless-design] OSPF Wireless Design Team Minutes 
> 
> All,
> 
> Yesterday morning Tom Henderson, Thomas Clausen, Joe Macker, 
> Emmanuel Baccelli, and I got together to design team issues, 
> progress, and actions. This E-mail includes my notes from the 
> meeting. Please feel free to add comments and corrections.
> 
> One of the first things we discussed was how to handle the 
> evolution of requirements.
> All of us agreed that if we were going to make any progress 
> we needed to stick to the original charter of the design. Joe 
> reiterated that the MANET WG is actively pursing protocols 
> optimized to MANET environments including reactive protocols. 
> I added
> that it would be interesting to see how either the protocols 
> and/or concepts could be seamlessly integrated with OSPF 
> (however, that also is not within the scope of the design team).
> 
> We diverged and had a brief discussion of wireless link 
> metrics and agreed that while the handling of these could 
> have a profound effect on the effectiveness on a wireless 
> routing protocol but  they were also not within the scope of 
> the design team or the OSPF WG.
> 
> Right now our immediate goal is to work toward a decision on 
> the selection of a recommended flooding mechanism by the next 
> IETF. This would include both the both the selection of who 
> to flood to and the dissemination of 2-Hop neighbor 
> information. We also discussed the difficulties of making a 
> decision when design team members have ownership of the proposals.
> 
> Tom updated us on the progress with GTSNet and  indicated 
> there were people in the process of coding Ogier's flooding 
> extensions. GTSNet is the primary tool for evaluating 
> flooding mechanisms.
> 
> Tom and Joe indicated one thing that was needed in the MPR 
> (Chandra) proposal was how to reduce the number of 
> adjacencies in very dense environments. In other words, how 
> does one operate with a partial topology.
> 
> We concluded with a discussion of metrics should go into the  
> MPR or CDS selection preference. Joe brought up some work his 
> team had done with radio quality as a determining factor.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design