Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

["Manral, Vishwas" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rohit/Acee,

>Is anybody running OSPF networks hitting this problem with no workarounds
in sight?
I am not sure about this statement exactly, however I do think it can be
helpful in a few cases. A recent paper by Aman Shaikh/Albert Greenberg
et.al. about analyzing OSPF for Enterprise is one such case. One of our
drafts "Congestion Avoidance and Control for OSPF networks" talks about
problems that have been caused by flooding overload in production networks.

I think the hitless restart MIB info can go in the OSPFv2/v3 MIB itself.
Besides from a previous mail on this list I recollect that Cisco/Juniper
already have the MIB in place for OSPF-TE.

Regarding the last item in the charter "IPSec usage with OSPFv3", I remember
one of the comments on the list was that the mechanism could be generalized
for other protocols like RIPng etc, would we pursue this item on this WG?

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Dube [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 5:17 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal


Venkata,

Thanks for your comments. Some of my own are inline.

A meta comment first - our first goal is to clear the decks
by getting done with all the work (drafts + implementation
experience) that has accumulated over time. Once enough
of this done, it would be a natural point for the WG to
expand on the charter.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:22:02 -0500 "Naidu, Venkata" writes:
=>Rohit/Acee,
=>
=> Some quick comments w.r.t new charter.
=>
=> 1. Can you consider "Flooding Optimizations" into charter ?
=>    If not, can you please explain the reason, why we should not ?
=>    This is field of its own - we might expect lot of drafts.

We considered this but would like to see some operational requirements
before including this in the charter. Is anybody running OSPF networks
hitting this problem with no workarounds in sight?

It would be a candidate for a future version of the charter once some
of the current items clear.

=>
=> 2. One of the Alex's work "OSPF Link-local Signaling" will
=>    be very imp for future OSPF enhancements. As you know,
=>    the options are getting over in OSPF headers.
=>
=> 3. "OSPF TE" and "OSPF Hitless Restart" MIBs must be
=>    considered as separate drafts. Recent OSPFv2 MIB only
=>    talks about Opaque LSAs - but content carried in those
=>    LSAs are not specified in any MIB. I am be willing
=>    to write those drafts - what is your opinion, Kireeti/Padma ?

I was considering reflecting OSPF-TE in a MIB too. And this could
be a potential item for this or a future. But is there an operator
burning for this stuff?

=>
=> 4. "Flooding over Parallel Point-to-Point Links" can be
=>    considered as an informational RFC.

What draft are you referring to?
=> Thank You.
=>Venkata.

Best,
--rohit.