Bruno, Les, > Some responses inline – speaking only for myself – not necessarily for all of > the co-authors…
Likewise. > > “Network operators should not enable Multi-part TLVs until ensuring > that all implementations that will receive the Multi-part TLVs are > capable of interpreting them correctly.” > > I would rather call for a « must not ». > > From a manageability standpoint, since the burden is now on the network > operators to ensure that this will work/not break the network, for existing > TLV, this seem to call: > [LES:] There was never a choice here – the burden is on network operators – > and would be even if an advertisement of MP support were provided. Why? > Because there is no safe way for implementations to react to changes in the > network state regarding MP support without risking flooding storms. > And, repeating a point I have made in the past, suppressing advertisement of > MP-TLVs when the current configuration requires sending them does not result > in a working network. > I don’t think it is a productive discussion to try to determine which > condition is worse: > > a)To send MP-TLVs in the presence of one or nodes which are unable to process > them or > b)To suppress sending of some information required by the existing > configuration > > Either way, the network will not be working as expected. I disagree with Les, I don’t see how flooding storms can ensue, and never have. But we’ve been over that point and I see no point in beating a dead horse. There was really no reason to bring it up again. More specifically, I don’t see that “MUST NOT” buys us anything over “should not”. What are we going to do if the operator chooses not to comply? Write a ticket? Wag our finger at them? If it was a protocol implementation feature, we would shrug our shoulders and say “bad implementation”. Since this is operational, and the consequences will impact the operator, I don’t think we would have any impact, especially after the fact. > - for a MUST implement knob to enable/disable (MAY/SHOULD on a per TLV > basis?). And possibly a SHOULD NOT be enabled by default. Current text says > RECOMMENDED and I don’t feel that this is enough given that this involves an > interop issue, and that some vendors/implementers tends to only implements > MUST. > > [LES:] I am fine either way. But as you are trying to apply normative > language to a behavior which is not reflected “on the wire”, it is hard to > see that there is any ability to enforce this. > SHOULD/RECOMMENDED seems appropriate to me. I concur with Les here. This is not meant to be a BCP about how to run the network. > - a CLI and I would also suggest the document to specify a YANG extension to > allow network operators to know whether a given implementation support this > or not (on a per TLV basis?) > > [LES:] This makes sense to me. I can get behind saying that there should be a CLI output and a YANG model extension/augmentation. If you’re asking us to actually propose the YANG augmentation, I would be very hesitant due to the OpenConfig/IETF split. Anything that we would do here seems like a total waste of time and effort. > 2) > “the key information MUST > be replicated in additional TLV instances so that all contents > specific to that key can be identified” > > Are we all certain that for all TLVs and sub-TLVs, everyone/implementation > will agree on what the key is? (especially if the key were to be spread over > multiple fields or if a sub-TLV were to contain both a key and non-key data). > In order to err on the safe side, I would prefer that this doc specifies the > key for all existing TLVs. > > e.g. “4.1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-02.txt#section-4.1>. > Example: Extended IS Reachability” > “Optionally one or more of the following identifiers: > > - IPv4 interface address and IPv4 neighbor address as specified > in [RFC5305 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5305>] > > - IPv6 interface address and IPv6 neighbor address as specified > in [RFC6119 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6119>] » > > If multiple (N) IPv6 interface addresses are advertised, these N sub-TLVs are > part of the key and must be advertised in all instances./part? Or is a single > common > ID enough to be used as a key of the interface? > > [LES:] Initially, we did not target this draft to serve as “closing the gap” > as regards existing TLVs where the relevant RFC is not explicit > regarding MP support. However, I think the discussion in the WG has > highlighted that some codepoints have explicit language regarding > MP support and some do not – and that it would be useful to have a place > where what is implicit is stated explicitly. This draft might be the > right place to do that. Be interested in feedback from others on this point. Long, long ago, Jon Postel used to periodically issue RFCs that tracked “Assigned Numbers”. That eventually became the IANA registry system. I have no interest in having this document become an analogous document, tracking the semantics of every IS-IS TLV. I can see SOME value in being specific about the semantics of the legacy TLVs, but I am deeply concerned that if we try to do an encyclopedic job, we would get it wrong. I would MUCH rather let implementors who are actively dealing with the specific TLVs resolve this independently. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
