Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Sina Mirtorabi <[e-mail]>]

Acee

->A big question here is "What percentage of OSPFv3 deployments
->will eventually require multiple AFs?" The higher the
->percentage, the more multiple AFs makes sense.

Although one could argue for the need of carrying IPv4 in OSPFv3 (which
eventually I believe customers will ask for it)  but multicast IPv6 AF
is a good example of the need for multiple AF

We are comparing two solutions for _multiple_ address-family ( multiple
means any additional AF to unicast IPv6) in OSPFv3 and we know which one
is more efficient, now if we do not want to use address-family at all
(and keep only unicast IPv6) then there is nothing to compare

The fact of not using AF cannot be counted an advantage for multiple
instance-id as the solution to AF in OSPFv3

thanks
Sina