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

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

Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

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


Pyda Srisuresh wrote:



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.




Hi Pyda,
I don't see a requirement to mix TE data and the unicast/multicast topology information. This has traditionally
been separate and processed by different functional components. The new LSAs in our draft correspond
directly to the existing base LSA types (only they are in extendible TLV format and support multiple
topologies).



[suresh] Acee - I am referign to usign the srisuresh-ospf-te draft as a basis
to make MT extensions. Specifically, the suggestion is to add new LSA types
with MT protocol extensions. And, the new LSA types could have topology
specific TLVs. The LSAs may be restricted to being advertised within the
topology boundary.


Pyda,

I took another look at your draft and don't see a good reason to use it as a starting point
for OSPFv3 extension including MTR and AFs:

1. It is targeted at TE extensions
2. It is based on OSPFv2
3. It doesn't specify the changes needed to base OSPFv3 needed to support it.
4. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a large base of deployments or even
implementations that would benefit from using it as a base.

Thanks,
Acee

cheers,
suresh



Thanks,
Acee



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