Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type

pete <pjmoyer@gmail.com> Mon, 22 November 2010 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <pjmoyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84ABE28B797 for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:18:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFmhSkh-mT1Y for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FB53A69F4 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so7334750wyb.31 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:19:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=55ZDXJkOzHhcmks0So/b2C1odTwGC33raoEE9z8E0ag=; b=Rqzacz9i52/6fAE5sGx1WkgUoY+/IQdMeAr2XQ2/8zrx4rvFHX7XlX7iFimJETQ9tV SZ4yoUEQ0zS44dxka3yoa+WZMQytM9pN9HftjugRvukVxV31IwK/eUPSRmHNVvsC2Ub2 jaPd+YJ67HI/svXC60plLmMSlqmRjBQK6Vog8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=qm+NBzIX1HT9ASpyGFE02TbXSqYtiIxdSxREFIiSagDanYG7WNNthQxh4khpnKgjPF I4g69GeRY7L1md4NmJCfAPqVi8xJ5SpS/DD+wzlVPv1GVu+pvt30ZERTysARIdwpOQtr 4uyu6HODnFLuVQgm3/ZxuHaX9np8l50L3TJsY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.129.71 with SMTP id n7mr6338357wbs.128.1290449967980; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.72.207 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:19:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B028963031@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B028963031@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:19:27 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim+E+QbuddCRSLpCPbh6YyJHbTXcpk4J6N+MbGm@mail.gmail.com>
From: pete <pjmoyer@gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364c70adf1eab40495a84b0b"
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:18:35 -0000

Hi,

There is also a case of multiple ethernet switches connected together
serially, with varying propagation delays to the routers that are connected
to one of these switches. Imagine different types of transmission
technologies in the network but still having ethernet on each end of the
links.

>From the perspective of a router connected to the nearest switch, a router
on a far end switch will have higher propagation delay than a router
connected to the same (nearest) switch, so having the ability to define a
higher OSPF metric to that far end router can become important.

Thanks,
pete

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I presented the draft
> http://www.ietf.org/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt in
> Beijing (slides http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/ospf-9.ppt) and
> it was deferred to the mailing list on whether the problem is worth the
> working group effort (some who reviewed the draft agreed that the proposed
> solution is reasonable for the problem).
>
> I'd like to request folks to review the draft/slides and voice your
> opinion. We developed the solution for a real network situation and would
> like to see that it gets consensus and standardized so that more
> operators/vendors can benefit from this.
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>