Hi Gunter, > I am having troubles understanding the value of ‘The Multi-part TLV > Capability’ flag. > What would break if ‘Multi-part TLV Capability’ flag would not exist?
A system that supported MP-TLVs would not be able to determine that there were other systems in the area that did not support MP-TLVs. The system might then advertise MP-TLVs and they would be misinterpreted or cause system crashes in the systems that did not support them. > IS-IS has been working well for many years. Why would that suddenly change > and mandate existence and complexity of a ‘Multi-part TLV Capability’ flag? If we want to introduce MP-TLVs, that change would warrant the existence of the flag. I dispute that a binary flag warrants the word ‘complexity’. > Note: thoughts about the flag: What if a system by accident sends > flip-flopping (set/unset/set/unset/etc) of this flag? Then other systems might misinterpret the results and generate inconsistent TLVs. That would be bad. > What if an advertising system support multi-tlv for TLV ‘A’ but not for TLV > ‘B’? We are not allowing that level of granularity. A system that is going to support MP-TLVs should take care to operate correctly for ALL TLVs before advertising that it supports them. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
