RE: [manet] Comments on "Problem Statement for OSPF Extensions ..." draft

["Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com>]

> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 03:08 am, Charles E.Perkins wrote:
> > I thought that the _only_ reason for even considering
> > reliable flooding was because that was what OSPF already
> > did.
>

I think that there are a few possible reasons, aside from
sticking with existing mechanisms for the sake of consistency:
  i) reliable flooding can reduce the total protocol overhead
in low mobility situations.  Note that in the case of the
hybrid wired-wireless network, there may be a large number
of LSAs from the wired portion of the OSPF area that do
not change frequently, even if the wireless mobility is high.
  ii) sometimes there is a need to flush out an LSA from the
area, and this is difficult to do with unreliable flooding
because the LSA disappears from the originator's database.
  iii) reliable flooding could potentially make the routing
more correct, if the timescale for recovering lost LSAs
due to a reliability mechanism were shorter than the timescale
for recovering via periodic repetition 

Tom

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet