Christian Hopps <[email protected]> writes:
Christian Hopps <[email protected]> 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 RFC5305 of course...
"There is no defined mechanism for extending the sub-TLV space.
Thus, wasting sub-TLV space is discouraged."
Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg-member]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
