Subject: Re: OSPF WG Direction with respect to MANET Requirements

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:05:28 -0800

> From:         Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
> Subject:      Re: OSPF WG Direction with respect to MANET Requirements
> In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked] >
>
> 
> I think new LSA types/dynamic metric calculations(can be internal to an
> implementation) would need to be added too besides the changes Acee has
> listed. I am not sure what changes are required for the DR election, are you
> suggesting that the STA(AP) with the route to the ABR becomes the DR.

It is not strictly necessary to change LSA types.  We have an OSPFv2 
implementation in the spirit of Fred's proposal (new interface type) that
does not change LSAs at all, and is fully backward compatible with
legacy routers.  It does not require splitting the MANET cloud into a
separate area.  The LSAs correspond to a point-to-multipoint subnet, 
but the flooding internal to the MANET subnet behaves like OLSR.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-spagnolo-manet-ospf-wireless-interface-00.txt

Tom

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:04:35 +0200

Tom,

I checked the link you sent a bit.

I may be wrong here but if we model our interfaces as P2MP, we will not have
a transit link from the Manet Area at all, as we are not going above 2-way
state in which case the only link for the P2MP network will be (as per 2328)

                o   A single Type 3 link (stub network) is added with
                    Link ID set to the router's own IP interface
                    address, Link Data set to the mask 0xffffffff
                    (indicating a host route), and cost set to 0.

And as the generation and routing table calculations don't have any change
how would you have the route through a wireless network. So according to
2.1.1 the table would be

                                           **FROM**
           +---+      +---+
           |RT3|      |RT4|              |RT3|RT4|RT5|RT6|
           +---+      +---+        *  --------------------
           I3|          |I4        *  RT3|   |   |   |   |
       +----------------------+    T  RT4|   |   |   |   |
           I5|          |I6        O  RT5|   |   |   |   |
           +---+      +---+        *  RT6|   |   |   |   |
           |RT5|      |RT6|        *   I3| X |   |   |   |
           +---+      +---+            I4|   | X |   |   |
                                       I5|   |   | X |   |
                                       I6|   |   |   | X |

Only when a 2-way check passes do we check the adjacent neighbors LSA's, but
that will never happen in the case here.

In my view the SPF and the condition of generation of links on LSA's will
have to change too.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Henderson, Thomas R
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: OSPF WG Direction with respect to MANET Requirements

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-spagnolo-manet-ospf-wireless-inter
face-00.txt

Tom