IETF Logo Mail Archive

Address Family Support in OSPFv3

Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM> Tue, 10 June 2003 20:07 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 QAA15587 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:07:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <3.00A0AD28@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:07:40 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 45200914 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:07:36 -0400
Received: from 24.93.67.84 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:07:35 -0400
Received: from redback.com (rdu162-240-050.nc.rr.com [24.162.240.50]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h5AK5u8V029608 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3EE63A8C.80104@redback.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:07:40 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@REDBACK.COM>
Subject: Address Family Support in OSPFv3
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

At the last IETF, the draft draft-mirtorabi-ospfv3-AF-00.txt was
presented. It proposes to make some protocol changes to OSPFv3 now
in case we ever want to support multiple address families (e.g.,
permutations of IPv4, IPv6, unicast, and multicast).

The draft raised a moderate level of technical discussion (mainly
centered on the proposal's backward compatibility mechanism). The
big question is whether or not there is a real requirement for this?
We all know this is done in ISIS but that doesn't necessarily mean
there is a requirement. And if there is, could the requirement better
be satisfied with multiple OSPFv3 instances. On the other hand, we
really want to get the protocol changes in as early as possible if
we ever want to support multiple address families.

Comments? I have some additional considerations that I will put
in a separate E-mail.

--
Acee

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status