Hi, Acee, Peter and Ketan:
I propose we limit the usage of LSInfinity within the network. That is to say,
we should depreciate its usages, not enhance it.
As defined in RFC2328, the sole purpose of LSInfinity is to let the receiver
bypass the SPF calculation for the associated LSA:
a)
Christian Hopps writes:
I simply turned your question around and asked: should conforming
implementations be penalized?
[LES:] Are you claiming that the absence of an explicit statement
regarding support of MP for a given TLV is equivalent to a
prohibition against sending them (which
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" writes:
Chris -
I am a bit concerned that this is degenerating into a
non-constructive argument. We can disagee but hopefully each post
helps move the discussion along in some way.
Please see inline.
-Original Message-
From: Christian Hopps
Chris -
I am a bit concerned that this is degenerating into a non-constructive
argument. We can disagee but hopefully each post helps move the discussion
along in some way.
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2022 2:48 PM
I simply turned your question around and asked: should conforming
implementations be penalized?
I can't imagine why you are explaining IS-IS TLVs to me, and I have never
advocated for nor even mentioned changing the encoding of TLVs so I don't know
what you're talking about with the rest of
Chris -
There are two different topics under discussion - one has to do with TLV
encoding - the other has to do with partial deployment issues. We need to be
careful that we keep the two distinct.
TLVs necessarily have to unambiguously define the object followed by attributes
of that object.
