Re: OSPFv3 Applications Support

[Rohit Dube <rohit at XEBEO.COM>]

Hi Kireeti,

Some comments inline [..]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:28:44 -0800 Kireeti Kompella writes:
=>Hi Rohit,
=>
=>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Rohit Dube wrote:
=>
=>> This issue has been around for a while and it is time that
=>> we picked one of the proposals as the WG document.
=>
=>Before we do that, let me try to summarize what the _real_ issue is.
=>The read that I got at the last IETF is that OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 are
=>*different* protocols; that one is focussed on IPv4 and the other
=>on IPv6.

Yes - one of the main arguments put out in previous discussions is
in fact that OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 are different protocols. I just wanted
to point out that "OSPFv2 is for ipv4 and OSPFv3 is for ipv6" is not
the only significant point of difference. The too protocols differ
in other areas as well : for example generalization of flooding scope
which we have discussed previously on the list.

Certainly the way RFC2740 is written, it deals primarily with ipv6.
And as such OSPFv3 is not adequately specified for ipv4.

=>So, the real question is, do we want to go down this path: create a
=>major split, and declare v2 and v3 are different protocols.  IMO,
=>they are very closely related, and building on that closeness rather
=>than emphasizing the differences is a better path.

IMO this would also mean that 2740 would have to be revisited to
clarify/specify support for ipv4.

=>
=>So, for example, carrying IPv4 prefixes in OSPFv3 the same way
=>that they are carried in OSPFv2, carrying OSPFv2 opaque LSAs in v3
=>as is, etc. seems a cleaner path.  On the other hand, defining new
=>formats for TE in v3 emphasizes the difference.
=>
=>I can't speak for all the authors of OSPFv3, but there was a mail by
=>Dennis Ferguson that seemed to indicate that he would like to see v3
=>include v2, not as different protocols.  I could be wrong -- but it
=>would be nice to at least get the opinions of the authors before we
=>declare a major fork in the road.

Yes I remember this. People can revisit this discussion at the OSPF
archives circa october 2002. During this discussion it was also mentioned
that one of the OSPFv3 authors preferred to run OSPFv3 separately from
OSPFv2 wherever both ipv4 and ipv6 were needed.

Certainly opinions from the co-authors as well as others actively
developing OSPFv3 are very welcome.

=>
=>Kireeti.
___

Best,
--rohit.