Hi Anton, Thanks for introducing the draft - I had meant to do it but am chronically pressed for time. Here is the link:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-ospfv3-lsa-extend/ You are correct that the draft does require a deployment upgrade. A mixed deployment will require separate OSPFv3 routing domains and multiple OSPFv3 instances at least at the boundaries. The alternative was to require both the existing LSAs and the Extended-LSAs to be originated in mixed deployments. This adds quite a lot of complexity and will not be scalable in many networks. It is definitely possible but is the is the sort of backward compatibility mechanism people who don't write or maintain routing software propose. As far as calling it OSPFv4, I don't think we need to do this since only the encoding of the LSAs change. We were careful not to change the LSA semantics in the interest of rapid acceptance, implementation, and, hopefully, deployment. I believe the OSPFv3 moniker should be reserved for a version of the protocol with far more changes (including deprecation of virtual links ;^). Thanks, Acee On May 3, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote: > Hi all, > I saw this draft was published a few days ago and I wanted to discuss the > approach taken by authors. In brief, this draft deeply changes OSPFv3 by > totally reworking LSA encodings but stops short of calling it a new version > of OSPF protocol. Per draft routers supporting new LSA encodings do not mix > with RFC 5340 OSPFv3 routers and do not talk to them. So from deployment > point of view section of the draft describing backward compatibility can be > reduced to simply "Totally not backward compatible". > > I think no one will object that OSPFv3 rigid LSA format became big obstacle > in introducing new features and even simply catching up with ISIS. > I personally fully agree that OSPFv3 has to be deeply reworked. > But in my opinion this draft is presenting OSPFv4 without calling it so - > and carries into the new version of the protocol some outdated features of > OSPFv2. > Isn't it a time to admit that OSPFv3 is failure of epic proportions? And to > admit that stance 'to introduce minimum changes into the protocol' taken when > developing OSPFv3 architecture was deeply flawed, sacrificed long-term > benefits of introducing new protocol version to short-term benefits of quick > standardization and will continue causing difficulties unless addressed (with > LSA encodings being the most obvious but not the only one)? > > -- > Anton > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
