Subject: [manet] #55 (olsrv2-multitopology): Maintaining Multiple Routing Sets

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:38:41 -0000

#55: Maintaining Multiple Routing Sets

 --- Old Edit ---

 In a similar way, the role of this extension
    can be described as to create and maintain multiple Routing Sets, one
    for each link metric type supported by the router maintaining the
    sets.

 --- New Edit ---

 In a similar way, the role of this extension
    can be described as to maintain multiple Routing Sets, one
    for each link metric type supported by the router maintaining the
    sets.

 AB> the draft does not specify creating routing sets.

 AB> I am trying to find the routing sets maintenance of this extension, no
 information about the router's handling of multiple topologies within its
 processing time. What are the priorities of the single MT-routing function
 while receiving different messages for the different topologies, which
 that maintenance is not specified by RFC7181 and needs to be in this
 extension. Suggest a clear section to describe maintenance of multiple
 routing sets (as introduction mentions that this extension is about
 routing sets maintenance).

 ----

 The draft mentions>

 each router will maintain a Routing Set for each topology that it forms
 part of, allowing separate routing of packets for each topology.

 AB> the draft needs to describe, How does MT-router do that separation for
 the multiple topology packets? If that answer in open for implementors
 then I don't think there is a maximum interoperability between MT-routers.
 Section 11 should describe updates and maintenance of multiple routing
 sets with packet separation (this should not to be left out of the draft
 as just considerations in last sections).

 ---------

 Section 12>
 MT-OLSRv2 may require greater management than unextended OLSRv2.  In
    particular MT-OLSRv2 requires the following management
    considerations: ...

 AB> these MT routers require administration and specific management
 considerations to ensure good performance. Section 12 mentions it as MAY
 but I suggest to replace to MUST. The section is a must requirement not
 just recommendations, the section needs to be updated and moved after
 section 4.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-manet-
  [email-masked]         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  olsrv2-multitopology     |    Version:
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd     |   Keywords:
  Writeup                            |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/55>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Christopher Dearlove <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:20:57 +0100

It would help if you read the drafts you comment on properly and were familiar with what they build on. Then there would be less time wasted. Also comments before WGLC closes would be timely. However as nothing here suggests a need for a change, that doesn't matter. I didn't comment on your last posting for similar reasons.

Yes, the draft does describe creating multiple routing sets. See Section 11. If familiar with OLSRv2, that's all you need - because OLSRv2 describes how a Routing Set is calculated and when it needs to change.

How are things separated? By metric type, as is clearly said more than once. Metric types are defined in OLSRv2. And what does the phrase "within its processing time" even mean?

I don't believe there's an incompatibility between implementations. Of course I might be wrong, but nothing here makes me think otherwise.

The may is a may, not a must. I'm afraid suggesting it's a MUST shows a failure to understand what a MUST is. It's even carefully a may not a MAY. And it does not need moving.

--  
Christopher Dearlove
[email-masked] (iPhone)
[email-masked] (home)

> On 23 Aug 2014, at 17:38, "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:10:08 +0200

Abdussalam,

I think you should take a step back... your recent bug tracker posts
were again a mixture of "yes, we might think about it" and "this is a
waste of time"... this one is more of the second category.

Please work a bit more on your feedback before sending it to the
list/bugtracker and try to focus on the important parts. Mixing both
categories make people stop reading your posts without checking if
they contain something useful or not.

Henning Rogge