[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ms-ospf
Subject:    MANET Extensions to OSPF
From:       Acee Lindem <acee () REDBACK ! COM>
Date:       2004-04-27 14:41:53
Message-ID: 020f01c42c65$c8d8ffc0$0202a8c0 () aceeinspiron
[Download RAW message or body]

There is significant interest in some level of MANET support in OSPF.
While this is relatively new to the OSPF WG, the idea has been discussed
in the MANET WG for some time. After a lengthy discussion among the routing
ADs and WGs, we would believe that we should pursue this work but
it should NOT preclude the work on MANET protocols that is being
done in the MANET WG. The integration of MANET and OSPF should be bounded
such that an OSPF implementation geared toward traditional enterprise
and ISP requirements should not be impacted by the MANET extensions.
Furthermore,  at this juncture, we should not try to address all possible
MANET scenarios or statisfy extreme scaling requirements interesting
from a research perspective.

A strawman for OSPF WG scope is suggested below:

   1. The work should be limited to OSPFv3. Mainly due to the fact
      this keeps us from having to do it twice and the OSPFv3 design
      point of running on a link rather than a subnet is more natural
      for MANET. Additionally, there are far more OSPFv2 deployments
      and limiting the discussion to OSPFv3 will limit the potential
      impact of the extensions.

   2. An OSPFv3 implementation that doesn't implement the MANET
      extensions should not be impacted by the extensions. Furthermore,
      failre to implement the extensions in non-MANET environments
      should not result in any interoperability or degradation in
      function.

   3. Ideally, the MANET extensions would be modular enough that the
      MANET unique considerations for future OSPFv3 extensions are
      minimized. This is very hard to quantify.

   4. At least initially, the OSPFv3 extensions should not be
      subject to the scalability requirements of the MANET work going
      on in the IRTF.

   5. Since all the OSPF MANET extensions proposed heretofore suggest
      flooding optimizations we have to very careful about where and
      how we choose the boundary for the extensions.

   6. Where both IPR and non-IPR encumbered mechanisms are proposed,
      the WG will analyze the technical merits and will try to prefer
      unencumbered technology without making technical sacrificies.



Thanks,
------
Acee
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]