Re: [OSPF] Removal of MOSPF from OSPFv3

[Erblichs <[e-mail]>]

Group,

	First, doesn't removal of MOSPF from a well-known RFC
	remove it from the use by multiple vendors? IMO,
	this work would not be done if their is belief that
	MOSPF has strong backing.

	Who can raise their hands and state that most OSPFv3 
	capable routers don't have at least 1 MOSPF CLI
	command? I think that the CLI commands will conflict
	and need to be changed if re-use is done.

	This non-support is awareness of MOSPF and that is all
	is needed for breakage!!!!!

	How many of these CLI commands are with routers that 
	are no longer supported?

	It was my undestanding of a couple of years ago that
	MOSPF was basicly NOT classified as "historic", but
	was being treated as such within a WG meeting a couple
	of years ago. This was one of multiple multicast items.

	However, IFF we are going for re-use of the capability
	bit, then why don't we go for the re-use of the MOSPF LSA
	type value? They both have defined meanings and if you
	have no-issues with one, shouldn't you expect no issues
	with the other? Just looking it from the extreme case
	and I don't recommend this!!!!

	Minimally, DON"T ALL need to be DEPRECATED including the 
	MOSPF RFC for v3, if any re-use is done for the publicly 
	defined pieces.

	Thus, IMO available workarounds remove the need for
	re-use and allows the cruft to exist WITHOUT additional
	headaches that MIGHT follow the removal of MOSPF in
	OSPFv3. This is the secondary definition of an obsolete
	public interace and is one reason why private interfaces
	are created.

	Mitchell Erblich
	------------------
	

	

Anton Smirnov wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
>     with OSPFv2 most implementations did not implement MOSPF (shall I
> say MOSPFv2) and the same will probably be true for OSPFv3/MOSPFv3. So I
> think it is very reasonable that we want to separate mandatory part of
> OSPFv3 from optional (and so far not very well specified) MOSPFv3.
>     We are not banning MOSPFv3 work completely. If there is interest in
> MOSPFv3 it can be taken as separate work by interested parties.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
> Anton
> 
> Vincent Nogues wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know any MOSPF implementation for IPv6. However, maybe, we will
> > developp such an implementation in the coming months. This project is
> > not yet definitive, so I would appreciate if this removal could be
> > postponed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *Vincent NOGUES*
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf