Tony,
On 04/03/2022 17:53, Tony Li wrote:
On Mar 4, 2022, at 8:50 AM, Peter Psenak <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
not at all.
I just don't want to get into business of merging info from several
FAD's sub-TLVs of the same type unless there is a compelling reason to
do so? So far I have not seen any. Asking for 100s of excluded SRLGs
in the FAD does not seem like a realistic case to me.
Then how do we deal with subTLV overflow?
Once we get into FAD Sub-TLV overflow business, we would have to define,
for each FAD sub-TLV, whether multiple of them can exist and how to
resolve conflicts if only one is allowed. For all existing ones, I can
only think of SRLG to be the candidate for multiple.
I'm fine with adding extra complexity, but at least I would like to see
some practical use case behind it.
thanks,
Peter
T
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
