Subject: RE: [Ospf-wireless-design] OSPF Flooding and Higher Mobility

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:28:02 -0800

Acee, first, thanks for providing this information and (eventually) the
code. 

> 
> MPRs have the following improvements over the base provided 
> with GTNetS:
> 
>      - Smart Peering is fixed to avoid instability by running a second
>        SPF to determine if a potential peer is available via a real
>        adjacency or unsynchronized adjacency. The adjacency 
> is only suppressed
>        in the case of connectivity to the SPT via real 
> adjacencies. This
>        is discussed in the Boeing report but wasn't implemented.
> 

One potential problem that I foresee with this method is that, as
connectivity conditions change in the network, one has to go back and
re-evaluate whether previous decisions to suppress the formation of
adjacencies are still valid.  Are you addressing this issue somehow, and
if so, how?

Tom

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

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:39:54 -0500

>adjacencies are still valid.  Are you addressing this issue somehow, and
Actually, we are not doing any adjacency pruning. While the discussion 
has not subsided on this
issue my hope would be that any MPR based solution would use the relay 
state as a parameter for
adjacency reduction. However, heretofore this concept has not been fully 
developed.