Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Sina Mirtorabi <[e-mail]>]

Quaizar,

I will avoid going through an endless discussion regarding SIN and
integrated approach optimization

Four comments though

1)
An integrated approach optimize the CPU usage, memory and network
bandwidth utilization which apparently is not your concerns.

2)
It is interesting how you make a believe that Integrated IS-IS is close
to SIN instance ID rather than our proposal. If ISIS had to implement
different instance (or using different process) for different AF then
how would you compare it to SIN?

The fact that you are having more information to transport which is a
_result_ of adding AF is irrelevant to the rapprochement that you are
making between ISIS and SIN instance ID of OSPFv3.

3)
Any optimization can lead to some degree of code complexity,  M-ISIS is
a good example of it.

Defining and processing two new LSA does not look complex to me, as far
LG election, it is pretty close to DR election algorithm but if that
bothers you that much there are other ways to fix it ( forcing the
router that is AF capable to become DR either manually or the router can
declare itself DR and win DR election )

4)
It is not sufficient to have separate instance ID, if a router does not
understand the reserved value for a AF but has the _same_ instance-ID (
router downgraded etc ) then how you make sure that the path is not
through this router ?


Sina