Subject: [Ospf-wireless-design] DT Direction...

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:22:36 -0400

Hi All,

I put together a brief outline as a suggested direction for our Design
Team.  For credibility and effectiveness of the DT, I think we need to
have focused direction and timelines.  Basically, we shouldn't try to
solve everything under the sun for OSPF-MANET...and we shouldn't drag
this on to the point that know one will care...including us the DT! :)

Please see attached.  I also put in there the generic requirements
that we (Cisco) have gotten from customers that lead to our design
proposals. (Due to NDAs, I cannot share specifics.)

>From what I understand, the problem statement is more an agreement,
and not a formal draft.  So, we should be able to reach that in a
couple of weeks.

Thanks!
-Madhavi
_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design

---

From: "Acee Lindem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:17:30 -0400

I believe everybody agrees that flooding needs to be optimised but is
it really a a forgone conclusion that we need to optimise hellos
and database exchange? I know that there was one vote for optimising
hello since "every little bit helps".  However, as OSPF WG co-chair and
steward of the protocol, I see one of my main roles as questioning 
whether or not the existing mechanisms need to be changed. 

Also, if flooding is dominant and database exchange is a factor, why 
wouldn't we want to focus on reducing the amount of information? 
I don't have a proposal for this but I've wondered why nobody has
gone down this path. 

Thanks,
Acee 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 12:22 PM
Subject: [Ospf-wireless-design] DT Direction...

> and not a formal draft.  So, we should be able to reach that in a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Abhay Roy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:52:30 -0700 (PDT)

Acee,

Yes I agree that flooding is where the biggest gains can be made. 
So of course we need to start from there. But the "every little 
bit helps" logic is very valid too ;) And in fact it has been 
brought up by some of the customers we are talking to.

I also pointed earlier that we are proposing to overload Hello 
with (possibly) a lot of new information. So an attempt to 
condense this information using a seq# (incremental) approach 
seems appealing in theory. I would like to suggest that we wait to 
see some simulation/measurement numbers before ruling it out.

Regards,
-Roy-

On 09/22/04-0400 at 6:17pm, Acee Lindem writes:

> steward of the protocol, I see one of my main roles as questioning whether or 
> not the existing mechanisms need to be changed. 
> Also, if flooding is dominant and database exchange is a factor, why wouldn't 
> we want to focus on reducing the amount of information? I don't have a 
> proposal for this but I've wondered why nobody has
> gone down this path. 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>