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

[Pyda Srisuresh <srisuresh at YAHOO.COM>]

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

Acee,

Items 1, 2 and 3 are true. However, that is not to say that the concepts in the
draft cannot be used as the base to add new LSA types with MT protocol
extensions, restrict scope of LSA advertisements etc. The draft will need
rework and will look much different from the current draft when done. 

As for Item 4, you are postulating that if we did have a new draft using the
concepts in srisuresh-ospf-te, you dont think it woudl benefit the existing
deployments. That seems a bit presumptious. Sound like, you are declaring that
adding new LSAs will not benefit existing deployments and hence not beneficial
to pursue. If so, it seems you have already made up your mind to go with the
TLV based approach. Is that the case?

cheers,
suresh

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