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

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:18:34 -0800

At 07:12 PM 11/25/2003, Acee Lindem wrote:
>I agree that a MANET area is not cast in stone. However, on the surface it
>would seem like a good  way to segregate the MANET extensions from base
>OSPFv3.

I have a real problem with the concept of a "manet area". Ask yourself what
an area is and why one uses an area. It is a containment boundary. Prefixes
that cross it get summarized; other prefixes don't. It has nothing to do
with the procedures used on interfaces in the area, with the exception of
in some cases ensuring that all of the routers in the area are configured
with the same set of interesting options such as DoNotAge.

Tell me this. If I put an Ethernet into an area, does it become a LAN area?
Why or why not? If I put a serial interface into an area, does it become a
serial area? why or why not? If I put a frame relay interface into an area,
does it become a point-to-multipoint area? Why or why not?

The reason the don't is that LAN-ness, serial-ness, and p2mp-ness are not
attributes of areas. They are attributes of interfaces.

So if I put a radio interface into an area, give me one good reason it
should become a radio area?

Operationally, Alex is interested in keeping a summarization boundary
around a domain containing radio interfaces and having a constant churn in
routing. On that, I agree with him. Operationally, that makes a heck of a
lot of sense. But that doesn't make it a radio *area* in a protocol sense.
It makes it a well managed area that happens to contain some radio
interfaces in addition to its other interfaces.

Let's not make bad protocol decisions out of good operational practice.

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:56:42 -0500

Fred,

You seem to have cut the final paragraph of  my 11/25 response. I've
re-pasted it below since this is still my position.

> If the MANET interface can be added without significant modification to
> the basic OSPF mechanisms (e.g. the P2MP interface was a natural
> extension since
> it  operates very similar to a mesh of P2Ps) then this would be an
> instance of option #3. If  OSPFv3 will need to changed significantly
> to meet the

> MANET requirements then this should be a separate option (option #5).
>
> Anyway, it for the OSPF WG as a whole to decide. Maybe it
> is best to put forth the MANET interface proposal for technical review.

Is the link below the correct draft for the WG to review? This was the
draft link
posted on 11/26 by Tom Henderson. I haven't had time to review it yet.

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

Acee

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:38:11 +0100

>posted on 11/26 by Tom Henderson. I haven't had time to review it yet.

it is Henderson's proposal. I don't think it is exactly the same as our
proposal, which is coming as a set of several drafts. The working group is
certainly welcome to look at Henderson's proposal.

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:35:45 -0500

> certainly welcome to look at Henderson's proposal.

A single draft would be preferrable to a set of drafts. We're going to
have to
see them before we can debate whether or not they make sense for OSPFv3.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Rohit Dube <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:23:36 -0500

Folks,

If we end up solving the OSPF-MANET problem in this WG, a solution
which is _not_ encumbered by patents would be preferred. I just want
to point this out up front to minimize problems down the road.

Best,
--rohit.

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:33:32 +0200

I agree with Acee, outline drafts which tell the exact nature of changes are
essential to figureout the amount of changes that will be required to the
OSPFv3 protocol for MANET.

I went through Henderson drafts and the number of changes do not seem very
many, though the draft works on OSPFv2 and not OSPFv3.

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Acee
Lindem
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: OSPF WG Direction with respect to MANET Requirements

Thanks,
Acee

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003