[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OSPFv3 Extension Future Direction (this ought to get your attention)

Vishwas Manral wrote:

Hi Acee,

I have not read the draft yet.

Having implemented both OSPF and IS-IS from scratch, my view is that the
OSPF LSA's have a big advantage of all relevant information being
clubbed togather. I think having extensible LSA's with TLV's(hybrid
approach) is the best approach (like in Pyda's draft) but I am not sure
we want to go to a fully TLV based approach.


This is the approach taken in the draft. I think that if we adopt this approach we should
be somewhat conservative about what TLVs we allow to be added. Since we also have the
flexibility of adding new LSA types we should use that option when the protocol extensions
do not need to be advertised and synchronized with the prefix and topology information.


Thanks,
Vishwas
-----Original Message-----
From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Pyda
Srisuresh
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 9:28 AM
To: OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: OSPFv3 Extension Future Direction (this ought to get your
attention)

Acee,

I had done some work previously on using new LSAs for advertising
topology and
prefix info into TE networks (draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-07.txt). This
draft can
be a good starting point to use for turning into future MT extensions to
OSPFv3.

I have not been active on this work recently due to my work priorities.
However, if there are folks on the list interested in pursuing, I would
be
happy to work with you on the effort and discussion. 

Thanks.

cheers,
suresh

--- Acee Lindem <acee at CISCO.COM> wrote:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At the Minneapolis IETF, I presented a comparision of  the
various options we have for extending OSPFv3. The reaction to the
presentation was very positive. However, it was last on the agenda and
the OSPF WG coincided with other WGs (most notably L2VPN).

At this point, I would like to initiate more discussion. The basic
question is whether we go with a TLV based approach or continue
to add new LSAs which need to be synchronized with the LSAs
advertising topology and prefix information. A TLV based approach
is described in:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mirtorabi-mt-ospfv3-01.txt

The crux of my presentation would be that this is gives us the


powerful


extension capability while still allowing us to advertise information


that


does not need to be synchronized in separate LSAs.

Thanks,
Acee