[Nsi-wg] Topology section

[Radek Krzywania]

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 at man.poznan.pl                   Networking Center
+48 61 850 25 26                             http://www.man.poznan.pl
________________________________________________________________________


> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:nsi-wg-bounces at 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 at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg