Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[dhaval gada <[e-mail]>]

Please ,

  How do I unsubscribe from the group.

 

>From: Sina Mirtorabi

>Reply-To: Mailing List

>To: [e-mail]

>Subject: Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

>Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:28:35 -0700

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com ([209.119.0.109]) by mc4-f40.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:49:49 -0700

>Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <[e-mail]>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:28:40 -0400

>Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 47944350 for [e-mail]; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:28:38 -0400

>Received: from 171.68.227.75 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:28:38 -0400

>Received: from smirtoraw2k03 (dhcp-171-69-101-56.cisco.com [171.69.101.56]) by fire.cisco.com (8.11.7+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h69JSZT18965 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT)

>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Q1OJDRSDidP

>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024

>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300

>Importance: Normal

>Message-ID: <000401c34650$4bfce9e0$[e-mail]>

>Sender: Mailing List

>In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

>Precedence: list

>Return-Path: [e-mail]

>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2003 19:49:51.0109 (UTC) FILETIME=[42A8BB50:01C34653]

>

>Acee,

>

>->> 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.

>

>If you do not need to have other AF, you can only have the minimum

>required in our proposal that is setting the AF bit in the Hello and

>v6-AF bit in the AdressFamilies field (Disabled mode)

>

>Once you want to have additional AF then you have to bother about the

>additional two new LSA and potentially other new LSAs in other AF (if

>needed) which even in case of multiple instance you would need to define

>ways to be backward compatibles, define new LSA for new AF etc

>

>Sina

>

>

>->

>->Thanks,

>->Acee

>->

>->>

>->> thanks

>->> Sina

>->>

>->

>->

>->--

>->Acee

>->

---

Watch Hallmark. Enjoy cool movies. http://g.msn.com/8HMWENIN/2740??PS=" rel="nofollow">Win hot prizes!