Subject: Re: [manet] Comment on NHDP

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:28:49 +0100

I agree with you in that this should be qualified as
limited to addresses which the node wishes to make
available for non-local routing. If a node has an
address that it doesn't want to be used for routing to it
from other nodes, there is of course no reason to advertise
that. We should qualify the wording to indicate that.
Whether a node then wants to advertise a single address, a
single prefix, or multiple addresses/prefixes is then up
to it, but it needs to then be consistent (it can change
its advertisement, but this over-rides any previous
advertisement and should be done infrequently).

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Teco Boot
Sent: 28 July 2008 18:15
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] Comment on NHDP

               *** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
     Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 

All,

Let me repeat an older comment on NHDP (and OLSRv2).

The current document mandates exchange of ALL addresses on ALL
interfaces of
the MANET Router.
E.g. page 11:
   o  A 2-Hop Set, which records the existence of bidirectional links
      between symmetric 1-hop neighbors of this MANET interface and
      other nodes (symmetric 2-hop neighbors).  The 2-Hop Set consists
      of 2-Hop Tuples, each of which records an interface address of a
      symmetric 2-hop neighbor, and all interface addresses of the
                                    =======================
      corresponding symmetric 1-hop neighbor.  The 2-Hop Set is updated
      by the signaling of this protocol, but is not itself reported in
      that signaling.

I prefer reducing overhead where we can, as bandwidth in the MANET can
be
scarce and improvements on efficiency helps scalability.
IMHO a MANET router could advertize a single summary prefix into the
MANET
protocol. For NHDP, a RouterID or alternative approach could be used for
identifying a MANET Router. Therefore I want to have removed
specifications
that **all interface addresses** are exchanged.

Please respond on this opinion.

Regards, Teco

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

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

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