Hi Henk, >> Yes, I'm advocate for putting things elsewhere, but that proposal has >> met with crickets. You don't get it both ways: no capabilities in the >> protocol and nowhere else does not work. > > I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. > Did you write a draft?
I did. You don’t remember it. It was that memorable. >> Because the thought of trying to deploy this capability at scale without >> this attribute seems impossible. Consider the case of Tier 1 providers >> who have large IS-IS deployments. Are you really going to evaluate 2000+ >> nodes without some kind of help? > > With the help of the management-plane? There is no management plane. We had the chance at one, but we had the great schism between OpenConfig and the IETF. So now we have nothing that we can rely on. > How did those providers make changes to their configs/features/architecture > before? > I would expect them to use the same tools. They have configuration databases, but they do NOT have good tools that tell them about router capabilities. They MAY be able to do something ad hoc based on software release numbers, but this is far from a good solution. >> And the routers will do computations based on the multi-part TLVs. >> One level of indirection for a capability does not seem extreme. > > Not extreme, indeed. > But again, I rather not see 20 different minor or irrelevant things > in the router-capability TLV. Certainly not at 2 octets per item. > 1 Bit would already be (16 times) better. I am happy to go with one bit. However, there is no place to encode that single bit today. >>> Regardless whether we do that or not, this discussion maybe should be done >>> outside the multipart TLV discussion. Maybe another draft should be written >>> about these software-capabilities in general? >> >> Please feel free. My proposal was shot down. > > Are you talking about a very recent proposal? Linked to the multipart-TLV > draft? Or something older? I vaguely remember some idea about > "generic transport" in IS-IS (or rather: outside the regular IS-IS instance). This was outside of IS-IS entirely. Several people disliked it so much that they wanted it thrown out of the WG. T _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
