Re: OSPFv2 Opaque LSAs in OSPFv3

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Thursday, October 10, 2002, 11:54:23 AM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> Thanks for your support, Venkata!

> One thing I would like to reiterate: there are a *small* number of
> currently defined Opaque LSAs -- TE, Grace LSA, and perhaps one more.
> If we analyse the applicability of those LSAs to OSPF v3, and mandate
> that any future definition of an OSPFv2 Opaque LSA MUST have a similar
> analysis, that seems to me to address the "backdoor" problem.

> The "backdoor" issue is an excellent example of a *theoretical*
> problem that has little *practical* relevance, given the above mandate.

It's an excellent example of the type of hidden problems that ADs have
to think about and that to them has a very practical relevance.

> As a consequence, we have at least two independent efforts to migrate
> just the TE document to v3, when in fact it should be really simple.
> Then we do it again for Grace LSAs.  And possibly again in the future.

OSPFv3- and IPv6-related issues should be considered and specified for
each feature independently, because OSPFv? are not just two versions
of a transport mechanism, they are two different routing protocols
providing connectivity for different types of environment.

> And then we hear that the IETF is overloaded, and the IESG overburdened.
> Oh, well ...

Thanks for thinking about the IESG. I can assure you that it will be
much less controversial (and hence faster) for the IESG to deal with
drafts explicitly specifying IPv6/OSPFv3 considerations for specific
features, than it will be to waste time arguing about a draft that
collectively migrates all present and future OSPFv2-based features and
"applications" to the IPv6/OSPFv3 environment.

Alex