Subject: Re: evaluation plan for OSPF MANET

From: Philippe Jacquet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:36:59 +0100

Dear all,

I tend to agree with Tom. We should find the most robust and performant 
solution. And in case of equal performance one should favor the solution 
that has the largest maturity and broad support from the community. With 
this respect MPR flooding seems to be the most robust and mature. 
Simulations show that it has still an edge over other flooding solutions 
and its robustness allows it to support minimal overhead with still very 
good performance in extreme scenarios.

I would like to point out the fact that if MPR flooding solution is 
indeed favored then it is not the end of the story for the promising 
proposals in MDR. As pointed out by Richard, MDR can be adapted with any 
kind of MPR CDS.

However one should be careful with the concept of wireless adjacencies 
and how it will be exported outside the wireless portion. Clearly we 
will need to keep the wireless OSPF in the right track with  respect to 
regular OSPF.

Best regards,
Philippe

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

>Note:  This message is intended to start new discussions.  Replies
>**only** to [email-masked].
>
>Now that we have established a list for this activity, I would like to
>suggest that the first order of business should be to agree upon a fair
>process whereby the OSPF WG is in a position to move forward on an OSPF
>MANET design by the March meeting.    
>
>A first step should be to agree upon what we are trying to decide.  I
>believe that we are trying to decide upon whether the basis for
>efficient flooding and topology control for OSPF MANET should be a
>source-independent connected dominating set (specifically, Ogier's MDR
>proposal) or a source-dependent connected dominating set (specifically,
>Overlapping Relays with Smart Peering).  
>
>I also believe that, unless it is proven that the two current designs
>have significant performance differences in different operating
>environments, we are trying to downselect to one OSPF MANET design, not
>to define the operating regions most applicable to two separate designs.
>
>A second step should be to agree on evaluation criteria and scenarios,
>to address the comments at the WG meeting that the previously used
>scenarios were too narrow.  This should be agreed upon within the next
>month or so, based on list discussion.  The scenarios/criteria need to
>be feasible to achieve in the timeframe of this evaluation.
>
>A third step should be to allow time for the interested parties to study
>the proposed approaches in light of the above criteria.  Simulation or
>implementation experiments can be used to support arguments, but are not
>required in any or all cases.  I will take the action item to integrate
>the new Cisco code and post a new evaluation software release.
>
>A fourth step is to have any interested party submit a short position
>draft on the issue at hand.  The position draft should be page limited
>(e.g., 10 pages) so that it is more accessible to a wider WG review,
>although it may reference additional supporting material.  It would be
>recommended but not required that any simulation or implementation
>scripts used to justify the arguments be made available at this time as
>well (private simulation results should probably be treated with less
>confidence by the WG).  Drafts should not be allowed later than the I-D
>cutoff date, and the publishing of such a draft should be required to
>make a formal presentation on this topic at the Dallas meeting. 
>
>The fifth step is to have discussion on the list between the I-D cutoff
>and the meeting, and presentations and discussions at the Dallas
>meeting.
>
>Comments?
>
>Tom
>
>
>  
>