Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 11 May 2011 22:34 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 036CCE0870 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:19 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 d+87dwuAi5XQ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED0AE07F4 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTcsO5zpFTF8ZeOnTrJfY1V2eV4w1zJKj@postini.com; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:17 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:31:00 -0700
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:30:58 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface
Thread-Index: AcwQKesEH1ZtPkRLTmCv11x5NDBn1wAASm5A
Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A09A87C5EC@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
References: <B072BEDD-793D-4BC5-8227-BBB37F1D56D2@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <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: Re: [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 22:34:19 -0000
Yes and No Sent from my iPhone > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 3:22 PM > To: OSPF List > Subject: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hybrid Interface > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP Hyb… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… John E Drake
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Richard Ogier
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [OSPF] Single Hop MANET versus Broadcast/P2MP… Stan Ratliff