Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Quaizar Vohra <[e-mail]>]

Sina,

I very much agree with Acee here. Optimization at the cost of
implementation overhead is justified when the optimization
results in significant performance gains. The gain with
AF approach is less than O(2), in fact much less in almost
all cases.

Quaizar



 > Sina,
 >
 > Sina Mirtorabi wrote:
 > > 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
 >
 > Sina,
 >
 > I disagree with you here. Adding a new layer for AF to OSPFv3 requires
 > more base protocol changes as well as the attendant implementation
 > costs and overhead. Any unbiased evaluation has to take this into
 > consideration.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Acee
 >
 > >
 > > thanks
 > > Sina
 > >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Acee