Subject: Re: OSPFv3 Applications Support

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:21:45 -0500

-> IMO this would also mean that 2740 would have to be revisited to
-> clarify/specify support for ipv4.

  IMO, this must be done first (before) we decide to port
  the existing features. The amount of changes when we
  revisit 2740 support for ipv4 will dictate the next
  steps.

Venkata.

---

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:08:48 -0500

Acee,

-> I also feel that whether or not OSPFv3 will eventually be used
-> for carrying IPv4 prefixes is a completely independent issue
-> (othrogonal in IETF-speak ;^).

  It is *not* completely independent issue. May be, *some what*
  independent issue. ;)

  When we port the hop-by-hop LSAs then you MAY come to know
  that "wow! is it this simple to support IPv4 in OSPFv3 by
  just adding another layer" then we MAY get convinced that
  we should follow the same procedure even for IPv4 applications.

  With out doing the actual (core IP routing) exercise,
  we are trying to speed up things on MPLS-TE applications.

Venkata.

---

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:47:19 -0500

-> I don't disagree with your recollection of the evolution of
-> OSPFv2 opaque LSAs. It is my opinion (and that a large number
-> of people I've spoken to) that opaque LSAs are unnecessary in
-> OSPFv3 due to the inherent handling of unknown LSA types.

  Acee, I also don't disagree with wg consensus. :-)
  If the consensus is what you said for v3, let us follow.

Venkata.