"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes:
Tony -Your summarization is incorrect. The proposal is to advertise a advisory message that indicates that a node is ready to receive MP-TLVs. It prohibits nothing.[LES:] That is what you are proposing - but others in the thread have proposed other ideas. For example, in an earlier post Chris stated:Once we have this info I think a stronger case might be made for actually having the router capability be used *operationally* (i.e., if you don't see the capability advertised then that router in fact doesn't send multi-tlv tlvs and they should be seen as replacements of each other),What I am trying to highlight is that the existing implementations of MP-TLVs for the "implicit" cases should not be penalized for sending MP-TLVs that are encoded consistent with how MP-TLVs for the "explicit" cases have been done. They are actually doing the right thing.
And I disagree with the word "right" here. They are doing the advantageous thing as long as one has the correct routers and software that allows you to advertise more than fits in a single TLV. It certainly won't be the "right" thing if a standards conforming implementation out there doesn't expect or deal with one of these multi-part "implicit MP-TLV" advertisements. Are you saying implementations that only handle a single-part TLV are non-conforming? To turn your question around, why should they be penalized? Thanks, Chris.
If we are in agreement on that - great! LesTony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
