Re: [OSPF] OSPF NBMA interface type

"Russ White" <> Sat, 06 July 2013 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B0B21F9C13 for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.981
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.618, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BBZx5iaSmNP for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 05:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202EC21F9C0E for <>; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 05:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=USCSWHITER10L1C) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <>) id 1UvRiR-0008Pc-2Y; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 05:35:51 -0700
From: Russ White <>
To: 'Acee Lindem' <>, 'Glen Kent' <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 08:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <012301ce7a45$5f5178b0$1df46a10$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJrYtzbgsjIZbjA1KKZcJvzHetbIAITC6qpmA0rqrA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF NBMA interface type
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 12:35:59 -0000

> With the convergence to ethernet everywhere, there is much less of a
> requirement for other OSPF topologies. However, P2MP is still very
> in wireless and we now have the hybrid interface (RFC 6845). With Ericsson
> IPOS, we also use P2MP for subscriber OSPF adjacencies where a single
> interface can support many subscribers each with some form of explicit or
> implied encap for demuxing each individual subscriber.
> I don't see much requirement for NBMA but I'm sure there are deployments
> making use of it.

I would be opposed to removing it, even if I can't find many specific
instances of it being used (although MANET is a major use case) --unless we
could find some specific reason to remove it (i.e., improvements in
performance, reduced complexity that directly impacts the operation of
neighbor formation, etc.).