[manet] Reviewing draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 01:10 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4FD1A0230 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:10:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id suDLNTHRd6yy for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9991A058E for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kp14so2450535pab.6 for <manet@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:10:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zDNMXPOH7sM/4sK0xTj6YmlAmclCkiAAjihu9WKfOJg=; b=vZHBFFMP/+VMNcFZTsmNlbGPHfapPM5R2s5woNbNDPo7j34NMTGPa5HnvdgpJ4ih7r 67KB0e0JQnCOD4hNcbyhacU2JK8ODbkOekXPrIlK/P5gVYYulCPegoQ1O2NcC8FDqgiJ ktJKjpxd+0aTi9wOmhzsXEwxuI3/uCFceNvUKYaHjsazvFtv0h0OS24aMKwr8Tus5DfR GTQwi4hyEgbBXfEXshICWOU23cvKt67LUDUbl95/pTFfWUfOW4gz0bngmIxEbulZ6zHs wFOrRZGc/9y19tK8c9Qw3QF7vxF5Hv8A1zo8FUM95rijnsdkN5P2Ew2iWzsUPBGpMILF mQxw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.230.137 with SMTP id sy9mr16016636pbc.126.1391735445434; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.0.104 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:10:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ891ZK8G4QXrA788SDiHpEOD7vUjw5Sg=MZueKp8O+=2Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <Chris.Dearlove@baesystems.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: manet <manet@ietf.org>, "T.Clausen" <T.Clausen@computer.org>
Subject: [manet] Reviewing draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-multitopology-02
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 01:10:48 -0000
The draft is very interesting and I add to ones supporting adoption. However, I will give my review comments for discussions or future progress. Draft>This specification describes an extension to the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2) to support multiple routing topologies, while retaining interoperability with OLSRv2 routers that do not implement this extension. AB> so the extension allows both OLSRv2 and MT-OLSRv2 interoperate, but are there any conditions? Draft> The purpose of this specification is to extend [OLSRv2] so as to enable a router to establish and maintain multiple routing topologies in a MANET, each topology associated with a link metric type. AB> Do you mean while retaining interoperability with few OLSRv2 in the MANET? usually when mentioning MANET in the draft I expect its nodes are routers of MT-OLSRv2 not non-MT-OLSRv2. AB> By increasing numbers of the non-MT-OLSRv2 within the MANET there may be disadvantages for the MT-OLSRv2 maintenance of its topologies. There should be a limit or some considerations for interoperability without MT errors. AB> Section 4, is very important but needs more work to clarify the protocol functions. As I did not understand if it is a MUST that all MPRs are MT-OLSRv2 or few/one can be non-MT-OLSRv2. Thanks to the authors, AB
- [manet] Reviewing draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-mul… Abdussalam Baryun