"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes:
Chris -
Please see inline.
[...]
> MP-TLVs are not sent just because an implementation supports them.
> They are sent because the current configuration requires them.
The SW also has the option to alert the operator that their configuration is
not supported, and to revise it, rather than play loose with standards.
The vendors who made these changes should have brought this to the IETF
as a draft that would have clear and deterministic transition mechanism (e.g.,
wide metrics had a clear transition plan documented in it's RFC).
[LES:] Hmmm...RFC 5305 says in the Introduction:
"Mechanisms and procedures to migrate to the new TLVs are not
discussed in this document."
What are you looking at?
RFC3787 which was published 1 month prior to RFC3784 which RFC5305 replaced.
"5. Migration from Narrow Metrics to Wide . . ."
I'm suggesting that the most important thing to come now is to make clear
what operators need to do to have a deterministic functional network. It
doesn't have to be the way I suggested, but we have to get there somehow.
[LES:] If there was a way to do this I would be interested. Nothing proposed
thus far does this.
What I proposed works, it is just not to your liking.
Thanks,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
