Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team slides for IETF 63

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Richard Ogier wrote:

> Tony Przygienda wrote:
>
>> Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> The design team is not meeting in Paris, due to lack of a quorum.  Acee
>>> Lindem agreed to present the attached slides at the OSPF and MANET WG
>>> meetings.  Any comments? 
>>
>>
Hi Richard,

> So, we currently have only one solution that scales to 100 nodes (and 
> probably
> to 300 nodes). So I wonder why the slides say the design team is
> "struggling" to reach consensus on a single approach.
> First of all, the design team needs to carefully read the proposals and
> simulation results, and comment on them.  I am eager to answer questions
> regarding my draft.  Suggestions for enhancements are also welcome.

The draft revision containing the technical details of your proposal 
just made the
IETF meeting cut-off (July 18th).  Hence, it is premature to say that 
reached
consensus. As Tom states in his slides, Boeing will soon make the full
report and GTNetS implementation available for evaluation.

>
> Regarding the "Smart Peering" draft by Roy et al. Is the plan to allow
> time for this new idea (which by the way is closely related to my
> definition of a "routable" neighbor) to be developed into a fine tuned
> implementation?  If this idea can be demonstrated in a short time, then
> it might be worth considering.  But we have already delayed the decision
> by several months, so I think we need to avoid dragging on indefinitely.

I see the fact that the proposals have similar components to be a good 
thing.
I read your draft on the plane and there are other similarities. For 
example,
the MPR approach uses Ack caching while the MDR proposal utilizes
a persistent per neighbor Ack list. Again, the more similar the 
proposals the
closer we are toward consensus.

>
> We need people to read and understand both proposals (including the
> "Smart Peering"), and to discuss them here.  For example, I could discuss
> why the MDR approach is more attractive than the Smart Peering approach
> because adjacencies are aligned with (Backup) MDRs, just as adjacencies
> are aligned with the (Backup) DR in OSPF.
> In other words, the MDR approach is a more natural extension of OSPF.
> We could also compare the performance, depending on how long it would 
> take
> to get Smart Peering to perform well.
>
> To avoid further delays, until there is some evidence that Smart Peering
> results in a solution that is as efficient and scalable as the MDR 
> approach,
> I would like to focus on improving the MDR draft. To that end, I welcome
> your comments, suggestions, and questions.
>
> One more comment below.
>
>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> From my meta-feeling and observation of proposals/discussion 
>> frequency, methodology
>> used, I think you are at the point where you should open your results 
>> to a wider forum.
>>
>>> Currently, we have two fairly mature proposals for how to do OSPF MANET
>>> extensions, and one public implementation of each.  As for next steps,
>>> you will see a statement in the charts that we have not yet achieved
>>> consensus.  Acee indicated his preference to let the design team run 
>>> for
>>> one more cycle, possibly augmented by discussion on the regular MANET
>>> and OSPF WG lists.  Are there comments on this proposed approach?
>>>  
>>>
>> Again, I think you should release the software to a wider audience 
>> and let people run their
>> scenarios and provide you with results. This should give you  a good 
>> indication what the
>> consensus on the two proposals or a variation thereof should be 
>> beside purely technical
>> points that you seem have shaken out roughly and do seem to have a 
>> struggle merging
>> (again, from my understanding so far the two have different strengths 
>> depending
>> on the scenario assumed).  Then, IMHO you will be able to progress to 
>> spec-stage work.
>
>
> I don't think a major merging of the solutions would be appropriate or
> beneficial, and it would cause further delay.  From page 10 of Tom's
> presentation, both drafts perform comparably when full adjacencies are 
> used
> (which only allows scalability to about 50 nodes), but the MDR 
> approach (which
> uses partial adjacencies) scales to well over 100 nodes.
> So I am not sure there is a scenario in which the overlapping relay
> (OR) approach performs better.  However, I am open to incorporating
> ideas from the other drafts into the MDR draft, as appropriate.  (In 
> fact,
> the MDR draft already incorporates the LLS and multicast ACK 
> techniques that
> were first used in the OR draft.)

In reaching consensus we may come up with a solution that contains  the best
elements of  both proposals. I hope that when you say you are willing to
modify your draft you are open to this option.

Thanks,
Acee



>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>>
>>    --- tony
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

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