IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 12 May 2011 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 4160CE0688 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 4Pm2i1o6xqsU for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DDEE0679 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iyn15 with SMTP id 15so1830844iyn.31 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+G0mkfMhqV+iMm6EBlzLaRu1PLW9peE5ATBN9F7tlMo=; b=BXws7Qx+Xl6Xu/t0GN97sGcF6cw3GPJCo2gA/g3k2/QZqKQLqZEc2u+kmmyG/Xck4n +mMQarQ1rgXwu0gbFHjgQiozNQ8onfGibZr8pvTq8u+vR6HqTudzVKq7FirI1/p5s00l ijKZkTNCuiIbdcjWXpsZZFAZc9PZtCUi3Gyqs=
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=g4EKauPHf66sEAJEj3NTkJjd6jVmcAQbPtyDUoxkbP4OjYOYaYkxmWFDTwR5kkeTh9 on1R59R3AtP7If+4cMhaekcXcj+pHTpPhyLg/iqvKmScPE1lhgKTqiFjclYqCpV+GCJg w5ba7HzrhdvWKm0KPUEpT/4bJBXKB31+p7x18=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.159.134 with SMTP id l6mr632244icx.16.1305220460871; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.3.9 with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B072BEDD-793D-4BC5-8227-BBB37F1D56D2@ericsson.com>
References: <AcwQKesEH1ZtPkRLTmCv11x5NDBn1w==> <B072BEDD-793D-4BC5-8227-BBB37F1D56D2@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:14:20 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinRrhSEuDorRKgGzYMbZUb-nT1rLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 12 May 2011 17:14:22 -0000

Yes to (1)
and no opinion on (2)

Alia

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email