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

[Peter Psenak <ppsenak at CISCO.COM>]

Acee Lindem wrote:
> 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.

the question also is how much information do we want to plug in a single 
LSA. Do we want to keep the current per prefix/router granularity  of 
AS-external-LSA/Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA/Inter-Area-Router-LSA or use these 
LSAs as a container to advertise many prefixes/routers.

Peter


> >  
> 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
> > >
> > >   
> >
> >
> >