Tony,
On 03/03/2022 16:06, Tony Li wrote:
Peter,
I believe there is a subtle difference between what each of you is saying:
a) Tony says that there may be many constraints used for a particular
flex-algo, so that we may not be able to fit them in a single FAD Sub-TLV. I
agree, we better address that. I will update the flex-algo draft accordingly.
b) Gunter says that a particular Sub-TLV of the FAD Sub-TLV, on its own, may
not fit into a single FAD Sub-TLV. Although theoretically possible (with SRLGs
only for now, I believe), I don't feel like it's very realistic.
I agree to address (a), not very enthusiastic about addressing (b).
Please let me know what do you think.
Thank you for bringing out that distinction. Yes, that’s accurate and an
important distinction that I had completely missed.
I think that both issues are worth addressing. I am thrilled that you’re
willing to address (a).
On (b), I agree that it’s an issue and one that is unlikely to be seen in practice. Still, someone has to write code. As my friend Fletch has always said: “The programmer has to fill in that else clause.”
I would prefer to address the "else clause" in a following way:
a) any FAD sub-TLV MUST only appear once in a the FAD definition for a
given algorithm from a given source
b) in case the FAD sub-TLV appear multiple times, the values in the
sub-TLV in the first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP from a given
source MUST be preferred.
Above does not support the "merge" of the values from multiple FAD
sub-TLVs, but as we all agree that is unlikely a requirement.
thanks,
Peter
So I would like to encourage you to address it as well. Yes, I realize
that it’s no fun, but it does deserve to be written down. Please feel
free to borrow language from the multi-tlv draft. :)
Regards,
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
