Chris -
Selected quotes from existing RFCs aren't going to resolve anything.
For example, I can point you to RFC 7981 which states:
"more than one IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV from the same
source MAY be present."
But does not specify any special encoding rules for the multiple TLVs i.e., all
TLVs are encoded in the same way. And we do have interoperable implementation
for MP-TLVs for Router Capability TLV today.
Similarly, in RFC 8919 in Section 4.3 it is stated:
"Multiple TLVs for the same link MAY be advertised."
and again no special encoding rules are specified.
But, I understand you are still concerned and feel that "something additional"
is needed when using MP-TLVs - at least in cases where existing RFCs have not
explicitly mentioned MP-TLV support.
To move this discussion forward, please define the protocol extensions you
believe are necessary i.e., please define your recommended solution.
Thanx.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 11:51 AM
> To: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>;
> Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk
> <rob...@raszuk.net>; Henk Smit <henk.i...@xs4all.nl>; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Multi-part TLVs for extending sub-tlv space...
>
>
> Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> writes:
>
> > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> writes:
> >
> >> Why did we explicitly define multi-part TLVs?
> >
> > I offer this as an answer to my own question:
> >
> > We have the standard (RFC5303) which defined sub-tlvs in IS-IS, and says
> this in "3. The Extended IS Reachability TLV"
>
> That should have been RFC5305 of course...
>
> >
> > "There is no defined mechanism for extending the sub-TLV space.
> > Thus, wasting sub-TLV space is discouraged."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> > [as wg-member]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
