Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] OSPF Flooding and Higher Mobility

[Acee Lindem <acee at cisco.com>]

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

> Acee, first, thanks for providing this information and (eventually) the
> code. 
>
>  
>
> > MPRs have the following improvements over the base provided 
> > with GTNetS:
> >
> >     - Smart Peering is fixed to avoid instability by running a second
> >       SPF to determine if a potential peer is available via a real
> >       adjacency or unsynchronized adjacency. The adjacency 
> > is only suppressed
> >       in the case of connectivity to the SPT via real 
> > adjacencies. This
> >       is discussed in the Boeing report but wasn't implemented.
> >
> >    
>
> One potential problem that I foresee with this method is that, as
> connectivity conditions change in the network, one has to go back and
> re-evaluate whether previous decisions to suppress the formation of
> adjacencies are still valid.  Are you addressing this issue somehow, and
> if so, how?
>  
Actually, we are not doing any adjacency pruning. While the discussion 
has not subsided on this
issue my hope would be that any MPR based solution would use the relay 
state as a parameter for
adjacency reduction. However, heretofore this concept has not been fully 
developed.

> Tom
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
Ospf-wireless-design at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design