Hi Linda, > I have the following concerns about the approach proposed by this draft: > > Suppose the information to be carried by the Extended IS Reachability (type > 22) (in Example 4.1) is larger than 255. Does it mean the recipient will > receive 2 TLVs (both with the Type 22) in one LSA? For legacy routers, the > second TLV (Type =22) might overwrite the first TLV.
Yes, a legacy implementation may well have bugs. The proposal is to fix that: expect MP-TLVs. > Isn’t it more straightforward to have a new TYPE value for carrying the extra > information beyond the 255 bytes? So, the legacy routers can ignore the TLVs > with the unrecognized types. You could do that, but code points are not free. We certainly cannot afford another code point for each existing code point. Using just one code point is less than helpful: it forces us to aggregate information that has no business being aggregated. Ignoring information is a non-starter because it makes partial deployments fatal: some of the domain operates with some information and some of the domain operates with different information. This would not be an improvement. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
