IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document

Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net> Mon, 09 May 2011 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ogier@earthlink.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 95822E0771 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
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 VNvRKopBR2C8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC4FE0723 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 13:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=c75HBH5Wyp2rS0mv2vnh1aCjJDJ05uLmlMObcD74DNKKc4DEbInp/GzNF8qYE9sJ; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.81.253.129] by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <ogier@earthlink.net>) id 1QJWtO-0002jC-Q2; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:17:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC84C40.7030801@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:19:12 -0700
From: Richard Ogier <ogier@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Retana, Alvaro" <alvaro.retana@hp.com>
References: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net>
In-Reply-To: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: a073897a9455599e74bf435c0eb9d47802d2bbebba13fc2c44b479e3ae24999014ad0b6cc057901c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.81.253.129
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Adoption of "Single Hop MANET Interface" as WG Document
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: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:17:27 -0000

In my opinion, the hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp draft is a simple and perfect solution to this problem:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01.txt

This has been discussed and some of us agree with this.  For example, Jeffrey Zhang's post dated 4/11/2011 summarizes some of the arguments.

Although both RFC 5820 (OSPF-OR) and RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) can be applied to single-hop broadcast networks and thus solve the same problem as the hybrid-bcast-p2mp draft, the hybrid draft is clearly the simplest solution, involving minimal changes to OSPF.

If the network is definitely a single-hop network, so that each router is one hop from all other routers, then there is no need for a MANET solution.  Otherwise, we need a MANET solution, which will also handle the special case of a single-hop network if by chance the network is single-hop (and this can be mentioned in the MANET draft).

But I would never apply a MANET solution if the network is definitely a single-hop network; I would go with the simpler solution in the hybrid draft.  For this reason, I don't think it makes sense to propose applying an OSPF-MANET extension to the case of a single-hop broadcast network.  But if someone can describe a situation where it makes sense to do this, please do so.

Richard


Retana, Alvaro wrote:
mid24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E65659240FE2F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net" type="cite">

Hi!

 

Following up on the WG meeting in Prague…

 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-ospf-manet-single-hop

 

A brief poll at the meeting found no objection to this update to rfc 5820.

 

This e-mail is the formal request for adoption as a WG document.  Just like rfc 5820, the intended status is Experimental.

 

Thoughts/comments?

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

 


_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email