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

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry - forgot to emphasize that the proposed optimization only applies to true-broadcast networks (including but not limited to wired networks), and is not intended for true-MANET networks.

Thanks.
Jeffrey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang 
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:48 PM
> To: Acee Lindem; Abhay Roy (akr)
> Cc: Alvaro Retana (aretana); [e-mail]; Nischal Sheth; Lili Wang
> Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type
> 
> WG chairs and members,
> 
> As Acee mentioned below, this optimization is a reasonable, 
> simple and general solution for a valid probem, and is really 
> not conflicting with MANET.
> 
> As a result, we would like to request again for WG's 
> acceptance of this work.
> 
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey, Nischal, Lili. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:10 PM
> > To: Nischal Sheth
> > Cc: Alvaro Retana (aretana); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type
> > 
> > Speaking as a WG member, I really don't see this hybrid 
> > interface optimization as conflicting with the problem space 
> > covered by the MANET draft. 
> > Thanks,
> > Acee 
> > On Feb 10, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nischal Sheth wrote:
> > 
> > > On 1/6/2011 2:26 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> > > 
> > >> You don't need to implement everything in the rfc to support the
> > >> interface functionality.  Most of the work in the rfc is 
> > oriented at
> > >> reducing the overhead on the wire (Incremental Hellos, 
> > Smart Peering) or
> > >> at addressing the cases where not all the nodes are 
> > visible (Overlapping
> > >> Relays).
> > >> 
> > >> If you don't care about reducing the overhead and can 
> > guarantee that all
> > >> the nodes are visible, then the interface definition is 
> enough. ;-)
> > >> That reduces to taking advantage of the broadcast 
> > characteristics for
> > >> flooding, but using p2p adjacencies -- which would be a 
> > lot easier to
> > >> operate because it is clearer what the relationship 
> > between the peers
> > >> w/the different metrics is.
> > >> 
> > >> In my mind the problem in your document is already solved.
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > Hi Alvaro,
> > > 
> > > If one were to use just the interface definition, we would 
> > end up with a 
> > > full mesh of adjacencies between all routers on the 
> > broadcast network.
> > > This is less desirable compared to the hybrid interface 
> > which requires 
> > > adjacencies only to the DR/BDR.
> > > 
> > > One would need to implement Smart Peering in order to 
> > reduce the number 
> > > of adjacencies on the MANET interface.  However, doing so 
> > would result 
> > > in suboptimal routing unless you implement Unsynchronized 
> > Adjacencies.
> > > Finally, Unsynchronized Adjacencies requires a protocol 
> > extension which 
> > > is defined only for OSPFv3.
> > > 
> > > Based on the points above, I don't consider the MANET 
> > Interface to be a 
> > > true superset of the hybrid interface to solve the 
> problem at hand.
> > > 
> > > -Nischal
> > > 
> > 
> >