Routing IPv4 with OSPFv3

Arthur Dimitrelis <arthurd@ARC.CORP.MOT.COM> Thu, 15 August 2002 06:33 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14966 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <17.006D5EB9@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 2:34:58 -0400
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 108989 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:34:55 -0400
Received: from 129.188.136.101 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 02:34:55 -0400
Received: [from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100]) by ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id XAA23757 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:34:57 -0700 (MST)]
Received: [from homer.arc.corp.mot.com (homer.arc.corp.mot.com [10.238.80.38]) by pobox.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id XAA25932 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:34:50 -0700 (MST)]
Received: from arc.corp.mot.com (arthurd.arc.corp.mot.com [10.238.80.59]) by homer.arc.corp.mot.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7F6Yn7C006114 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:34:49 +1000 (EST)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3D5B4B88.215EA127@arc.corp.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:34:49 +1000
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Arthur Dimitrelis <arthurd@ARC.CORP.MOT.COM>
Subject: Routing IPv4 with OSPFv3
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings,

I'm interested in people's opinions and experiences in using OSPFv3 (aka
OSPF for IPv6) for routing IPv4.

My understanding from reading the OSPFv3 specification (RFC2740) is that
OSPFv3 is designed with a degree of protocol independence. By this I
mean that you could, in principle, use OSPFv3 to route any protocol
family you chose, just so long as you were able to map addressing
information to the topology (and of course your OSPF code knew how to
set up the correct forwarding state for your given protocol family). The
topology-to-address mapping for IPv6 is done using OSPFv3's
Intra-area-prefix-LSAs, but the spec makes no mention of how you might
map IPv4 addressing information to a network topology.

So, my questions are:
- Regarding OSPFv3 - is the bulk of it protocol agnostic, or is it just
my imagination? Was it the intention of the protocol authors to create a
protocol that could easily route multiple protocol families, or just
IPv6?
- Is there any interest out there in using OSPFv3 to route IPv4?
- Do people think it is a good idea in general to have a single protocol
route both v4 and v6? (I'm guessing that there are those out there who
think that OSPFv2 works just fine so why would you want to change it . .
. )

And while I'm at it, are there any such things as Opaque LSAs for
OSPFv3?

cheers,
Arthur