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

[Michael J Barnes <mjbarnes at CISCO.COM>]

Hi Acee,

Acee Lindem 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.

If we want to stick to enhancing v3 rather than moving forward to v4, then 
I would like to suggest that there be a separate draft for new LSAs (and 
perhaps other enhancements), similar to what is done in the MTR draft, but 
not specifically for MTR. The reason for a separate draft is so that we 
can design the new LSAs such that they more generally accomplish the goal 
of making OSPFv3 extendable, rather than just the more specific goal of 
supporting MTR. Then the MTR draft, and other drafts, can be written to 
take advantage of the new LSAs.

It is also my opinion that not too much be stuffed into the router LSA, 
because if the LSA becomes large enough that it must be fragmented, and 
when any small part of the LSA is updated a lot of unchanged information 
will be reflooded. There are ways that the synchronization can be 
addressed without putting many different pieces of data into the Router LSA.

Regards,
Michael

> Thanks,
> Acee