Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

> For example, to support the OSPFv3 IPv6 multicast topology with the
> multi-AF approach one must implement the two drafts you've posted plus
> deal with all the issues related to the AF layer in configuration and
> management (i.e., show commands, etc). To do it with multiple instances,
> all you have to do is configure the address family and default OSPFv3
> interface ID at the instance level. I haven't thought about this at great
> depth but on the surface I can't see why it wouldn't work. There will be
> no protocol changes and I'll submit to you that the implementation cost
> is less.
>
> At this point, I'm not saying that one approach is obviously better or
> trying to precisely quantify the relative efficiencies when multiple AFs
> are used. All I'm saying is that you can't completely discount the
> associated costs.

But, if you are carrying something which doesn't necessarily fit into the
ipv6 address format, then you need the new instance, and the new tlv's
anyway, correct? So, you've now gained the additional complexity on all
sides, and gained nothing, it seems to me.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone