ak) ; Robert Raszuk
> ; Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Multi-part TLVs for extending sub-tlv space...
>
>
> Christian Hopps writes:
>
> > Christian Hopps writes:
> >
> >> Why did we explicitly define multi-part TLVs?
> >
> > I offer
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
