Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-05-06
Requested 2017-04-13
Requested by Acee Lindem
Authors Acee Lindem , Abhay Roy , Dirk Goethals , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem , Fred Baker
Draft last updated 2017-05-17
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -14 by IJsbrand Wijnands (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -20 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -20 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer IJsbrand Wijnands
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14-rtgdir-early-wijnands-2017-05-17
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 23)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-05-17
+OSPF, Routing Directorate

Thanks for the review Ice!

On 5/5/17, 9:28 AM, "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <> wrote:

>Hi All,
>I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this draft.
>This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow
>additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA. Overall,
>well written, easy to understand what the objective is for this draft.
>Comments and Questions:
>This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would
>almost argue to call it OSPFv4..

Experience has proved that new versions are slow to deploy. OSPFv3 is well
positioned to evolve to the next generation IGP.

> Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that
>would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to
>extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a better
>way to achieve the goal.

No - we struggled with backward compatibility and, due to complexity, went
with with area by area migration as opposed to migration with concurrent
usage of both regular and extended LSAs.

>Minor Issues and Nits: