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

[Sina Mirtorabi <sina at CISCO.COM>]

All,

Let me clarify a couple of points:

1) The main purpose of the draft is to support MTR in OSPFv3. As the
existing LSA cannot be used for this extension, new LSA with flexible
encoding (i.e. TLV) are used for this purpose. 

2) The draft also can be used to support an integrated approach to carry
address-families in OSPFv3. Other AF would simply be defined in different
MT-ID. The next version of the draft would specify that.

3) MT capable router would interact with non-MT routers in default topology
using existing LSA. If all routers are MT capable one has the possibility to
use new LSAs even for default topology. This is controlled through
configuration via rfc2740compatibility. 

4) The draft does NOT propose to replace rfc2740 but simply the support of
MTR (and AF)

5) The draft _may_ be used to move to a flexible encoding for future
development of OSPFv3.

6) Future extensions are in no way tied to these newly proposed LSAs. As
appropriate, we would introduce them in yet another LSA (e.g. OSPFv3 TE LSA)
or as a TLVs/Sub-TLVs in our newly proposed LSAs.

7) deployment wise, there may be three categories

   7-a) if one does not need MTR/ AF, chances are that there is not much
motivation to move to this new encoding for them
   7-b) if MTR /AF are needed in some part of network, a coexistence of both
exiting and new LSA would exist
   7-c) if all routers are MTR-capable and MTR/AF are mostly deployed, new
LSA would be used


The discussion seems to be aimed at 5) however the original purpose of the
draft is 1) and 2). 
 

Thanks
Sina




-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: Mailing List [mailto:OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On 
-> Behalf Of Acee Lindem
-> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:10 PM
-> To: OSPF at PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
-> Subject: OSPFv3 Extension Future Direction (this ought to 
-> get your attention)
-> 
-> 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
->