Tony, Les,
I believe we can all agree that we do not want to change the behavior of
existing implementations that support MP-TLVs based on the
advertisements of the MP-capability from other routers - it would break
existing networks. Even the text in the MP-TLV draft does not suggest
that to be the case.
I find the discussion about advertising supported capabilities for
management purposes in IGPs interesting, but not specific, nor directly
related to the MP-TLV draft. Keeping the two separate would make a lot
of sense.
my 2c,
Peter
On 05/10/2022 22:18, Tony Li wrote:
Les,
On Oct 5, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org
<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
*/[LES:] It is clear that we have different opinions on this – and
there are multiple folks on both sides of this discussion./*
*/What I would hope we can agree on is to separate the discussion of
adding advertisement of “feature supported” from the MP-TLV draft by
writing a separate draft on this proposal./*
*/This would allow the two pieces of work to progress independently –
as they should./*
*//*
*/This makes sense to me since the proposal to advertise feature
support is clearly not limited to MP-TLV and has no bearing on how
MP-TLVs are encoded./*
*//*
*/Can we agree on this?/*
Sorry, I’m not on board with this. The two functions would end up
disconnected, all the way to the field.
T
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
