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
Christian Hopps writes:
Christian Hopps 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
Christian Hopps 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"
"There is no defined mechanism for extending the
>From my understanding, to introduce the Multi-part TLV into the network, the
following two things should be done:
1) The capability negotiation. Unless all of nodes support such
capabilities, the advertisement of Multi-part TLV should not be initiated,
or else, lack of the correct parsing of
