Tony On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:26 AM Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote:
> > 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. > Gyan> That would be bad if the system would misinterpret the MP-TLV causing it to crash. So then the non supporting devices could be vulnerable to crash. > > > 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 > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
