Re: Address Family Support in OSPFv3

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Quaizar Vohra wrote:
>  > > 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.
>
> I don't think we would even require new LSA types. The prefix encoding
> as it stands currently is fairly flexible. I doubt that you would even
> require extra bits in the prefix options. The clearing of NU bit
> and the indication of the AF from the instance-id is sufficient to
> tell you which AF the prefix belongs to.

I haven't thought about it in great depth. I guess if you
use solely address family foo prefixes for a address family foo
instance it might be possible.

>
>
>  >
>  > > 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
>


--
Acee