Hi Acee, Thanks for accepting my suggestions.
Em qui., 13 de jul. de 2023 às 18:23, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> escreveu: > > Lastly, this might just be a small nitpick of mine, but I don't think > > having a "length" leaf for all TLVs and Sub-TLVs adds much value. In > > my opinion, it's only relevant for unknown TLVs that couldn't be > > decoded; otherwise, it just adds unnecessary noise. If we take a look > > at the IS-IS model, for instance, we can see that it doesn't have a > > "length" leaf for the LSP TLVs and Sub-TLVs. > > I’ve removed the three "length" leaves that were fixed length. I left the > ones that were variable due to contained sub-TLVS. > Are you saying that these TLVs would be malformed if the length weren’t > correct? No. I just can't see how the TLV/Sub-TLV length is a useful piece of information. For the "unknown-tlv" and "unknown-sub-tlv" lists, I think the "length" serves a purpose, as the management application might want to parse the TLV raw data. For known TLVs and Sub-TLVs, I don't see much point. I understand this might be nitpicking from my side, so feel free to ignore this suggestion if you prefer. > > By the way, I've generated some sample data using the updated module. > > Feel free to check it out here: > > http://westphal.com.br/holo/ospfv3-topo/ > > What testing infra-structure are you using? It's a tool called netgen I wrote several years ago, mostly for personal use. It uses Linux namespaces and veth interfaces to create a virtual topology. Today there are similar tools that are better documented and maintained, but I'm too lazy to migrate to those tools so I keep using netgen :) Best Regards, -- Renato Westphal _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
