Subject: [Ospf-manet] Re: Ospf-manet Digest, Vol 10, Issue 5

From: Aniket Desai <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:50:16 -0400

At 11:29 AM 9/18/2006, [email-masked] wrote:
>it
>would be better to move both of the proposals we have into experimental,
>until we have implementations

If someone hasn't pointed this out already, then I will reiterate 
again: Ogier draft has *two* implementations from independent 
sources, and the second implementation (which is OPNET's) has been 
extensively validated against its parent (GTNets). That significantly 
reduces the possibility of bugs and clearly increases the confidence 
in either. Ogier draft is out there in detailed implementations and 
one can subject it to any kind of simulations and retrieve answers to 
all possible skepticisms. It is absolutely unfair to treat Ogier 
draft on the same level to its counter proposals, because a) Ogier 
draft has been written in completeness (I know it because I 
implemented it), b) It has been validated cor correctness of 
implementation, so it is ready to be tested *right now*, and c) 
however limited the range of experiments some may deem, data is 
available to show how scalability and robustness is achieved using 
MDR. While counter proposals are speculating on its shortcomings, it 
is not immediately clear how changing the core of Ogier draft 
(adjacency contraction, intelligent LSA flooding and acknowledgements 
and *definitely a natural extension of OSPF*, which is conformant 
with legacy OSPF and fits into legacy OSPF beautifully) is going to 
help OSPF at all.

Thanks,

Aniket 

_______________________________________________
Ospf-manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet