That sounds like it rather depends upon your implementation approach?
Yours,
Joel
On 3/28/2025 9:07 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
There is no necessary to concatenate the difference type IS-IS TLVs together,
but it must be done for the MP-TLV pieces.
I have never seen any example that there is no any length signaling for
segmentation one big-TLV and can concatenate it correctly without the right
length indication.
It’s pity the LSR WG will endorse such proposal.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Mar 29, 2025, at 08:16, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Robert,
Sorry if I was not very clear but my point was that MP-TLV may be coming in
multiple LSPs - something which to the best of my understanding is not the case
today with any TLV type. On that basis as LSP length natural boundary is gone
it seems sky is the limit now.
This is incorrect. A TLV may appear in many different framgments. For
example, a router may have multiple adjacencies. These may be spread out
across fragments.
T
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
