Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Russ White wrote:
>>For example, to support the OSPFv3 IPv6 multicast topology with the
>>multi-AF approach one must implement the two drafts you've posted plus
>>deal with all the issues related to the AF layer in configuration and
>>management (i.e., show commands, etc). To do it with multiple instances,
>>all you have to do is configure the address family and default OSPFv3
>>interface ID at the instance level. I haven't thought about this at great
>>depth but on the surface I can't see why it wouldn't work. There will be
>>no protocol changes and I'll submit to you that the implementation cost
>>is less.
>>
>>At this point, I'm not saying that one approach is obviously better or
>>trying to precisely quantify the relative efficiencies when multiple AFs
>>are used. All I'm saying is that you can't completely discount the
>>associated costs.
>
>
> But, if you are carrying something which doesn't necessarily fit into the
> ipv6 address format, then you need the new instance, and the new tlv's
> anyway, correct?

New LSA types will be required to advertise addresses for new address
families independent of the approach.

> So, you've now gained the additional complexity on all
> sides, and gained nothing, it seems to me.

I'm not sure how get to this conclusion - the processing of the new LSA
types is an incremental cost on top of either approach.

>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
> __________________________________
> [e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>


--
Acee