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

[Erblichs <erblichs at EARTHLINK.NET>]

Oooooh,

	Why?

	Would v4 and v2 interoperate? If they did
	wouldn't we run into the same problems?

	Would v4 and v3 interoperate?

	IM limited opinion, the idea of extensibility
	is very difficult to achive.

	Would we support subsec hellos?

	Do we add two levels of IP support?

	Would we add nack support?

	Would we support overload notification?

	Would we support notification of router capibility
	like a Enterprise level router, that would
	over-ride DR election?

	Where do you stop?

	Just food for thought..

	Mitchell Erblich
	------------------------

Dave Katz wrote:
> 
> Guess you sent it to the whole list anyhow.  ;-)
> 
> Bumping the version number is the only safe way to make significant
> changes for which backward compatibility may be problematic.  It
> doesn't even have to be a significant syntactic or semantic change to a
> protocol, though it tends to invite a whole bunch of meddling when you
> do so...
> 
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Michael J Barnes wrote:
> 
> > Hey Acee,
> >
> > I want to pass this thought by you personally before sending it to the
> > whole list, to see what you think.
> >
> > It seems to me that we should be talking about OSPFv4. Radical?
> > Perhaps, but here's why I think this:
> >
> > OSPFv3, while it has many improvements over OPSFv2, was still not
> > really designed to be extended. I really agree with you in general
> > about the future direction for OSPF, by including TLVs in certain data
> > structures, etc., are great ideas, but the solutions are nasty hacks.
> > But the point I really want to make is not that we shouldn't be
> > extending v3, it's that IMHO the future direction of OSPF should
> > first, be a version of the protocol that has been designed from the
> > base to be extendable. OSPFv3 is part way there, and I agree with the
> > ideas you presented for the future direction, but I just think it
> > would be better in the long run to have a new version of OSPF for
> > this.
> >
> > If you're interested, I do have some specific ideas for functionality.
> >
> > Is that too radical of an idea, or something that would be worth more
> > thought?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >