Speaking as working member: Hi Tony,
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't think like the ASLA encoding. However, we have standardized the ASLA encoding in the LSR working group - this is a done deal. You are free to propose an alternative but you this should not be done after the fact in a WG document that contains functionality the WG believes is useful. Also, any alternate proposals should cover backward compatibility and migration. Thanks, Acee On 7/30/21, 4:42 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Tony Li" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Peter, > well, not in case where you want a per application granularity of which application uses that metric on a particular ink. If you want per application granularity, then you need to send two TLVs, regardless of ASLA. > To do that you need per application/per link signaling. No, you can use two different metrics. > You propose to use different metric-type, we propose to use the bit in the common metric type. That's the whole difference. Adding a bit on a single ASLA TLV doesn’t give you per-application granularity. > sure, but if values are equal, ASLA has a benefit. What benefit? I only see overhead. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
