Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] OSPF Flooding and Higher Mobility

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

>Acee, first, thanks for providing this information and (eventually) the
>code. 
>
>  
>
>>MPRs have the following improvements over the base provided 
>>with GTNetS:
>>
>>     - Smart Peering is fixed to avoid instability by running a second
>>       SPF to determine if a potential peer is available via a real
>>       adjacency or unsynchronized adjacency. The adjacency 
>>is only suppressed
>>       in the case of connectivity to the SPT via real 
>>adjacencies. This
>>       is discussed in the Boeing report but wasn't implemented.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>One potential problem that I foresee with this method is that, as
>connectivity conditions change in the network, one has to go back and
>re-evaluate whether previous decisions to suppress the formation of
>adjacencies are still valid.  Are you addressing this issue somehow, and
>if so, how?
>  
>
Actually, we are not doing any adjacency pruning. While the discussion 
has not subsided on this
issue my hope would be that any MPR based solution would use the relay 
state as a parameter for
adjacency reduction. However, heretofore this concept has not been fully 
developed.

>Tom
>
>  
>

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