Hi, People spend enough time on OSPF to make it reliable and good. I support the idea to get this concept into NSI and refactor it according to our needs. Unless some strong objections arise. Multicast is not an issue now. Best regards Radek ________________________________________________________________________ Radoslaw Krzywania Network Research and Development Poznan Supercomputing and radek.krzywania@man.poznan.pl Networking Center +48 61 850 25 26 http://www.man.poznan.pl ________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message----- From: nsi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:nsi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen van der Ham Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:15 PM To: Jerry Sobieski Cc: 'NSI WG' Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] Topology section
Hi,
On 16 May 2012, at 19:46, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
The key is that we are exchanging world views - or updates to world views, not simply local topologies.
try this protocol sequence: [...]
Instead of thinking up all kinds of scenarios, and exchange mechanisms, could we just please restrain this to referring to other implementations?
Most of what I've seen so far is all supported by OSPF. It has limited peering, abstraction, and simple update mechanisms. I propose we use that same mechanism, if there is anything that is wrong with that, please write what needs to be changed, and why.
The only thing we don't have at our disposal is multicast, but I think we can solve that by using a peer-to-peer overlay network. That requires some bootstrapping, but you need to coordinate with your neighbor(s) already, so that can become part of that exchange too.
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg