[OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1826BE0693 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id plixCluI4v1n for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E27E07C9 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4BMMVsQ017744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 17:22:32 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.54]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:22:31 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:22:29 -0400
Thread-Topic: Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface
Thread-Index: AcwQKesEH1ZtPkRLTmCv11x5NDBn1w==
Message-ID: <B072BEDD-793D-4BC5-8227-BBB37F1D56D2@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:22:35 -0000

Speaking as WG Co-Chair,

As many of you remember, we spent a lot of WG time 2004-2007 discussing various OSPF MANET solutions. We were unable to converge on a single solution and ended up with 3 experimental RFCs. It was thought that possibly one day a clear winner would emerge and become a standard. While this may still happen in the future, I don't believe we are there yet and do not feel it would be beneficial to renew the debate.

In Beijing, the hybrid broadcast/P2MP interface was proposed with a radio networks being one of the target environment. This collision with the former work on OSPF MANET elicited much discussion. In Prague, the chairs, authors, and some other interested parties met to specifically address this collision. What we agreed was that the existing OSPF MANET RFCs were the agreed upon solution(s) for MANET environments. The OSPF hybrid interface could still be valuable as a simple adjacency reduction technique on links where broadcast capability was available but not all the links had the same costs. We also agreed that the OSPF MANET mechanisms (with some simplifications) could also handle the single hop case.

Hence, the questions for the WG are:


  1. Do we want to accept draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt as a WG document?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp

  2. Do we wish to allow revisions of the OSPF MANET experimental RFCs to cover the single-hop case (and possibly minor corrections)?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5449/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5614/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5820/

Note that IPR statements are filed for some of the above.

Thanks,
Acee