Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> writes:
Why are we having this discussion again ? My recollection is that we have a “good enough” solution that is deployed and interoperable. If you want the “generic solution” then the 16-bit TLVs described in RFC7356 is the way to go forward and if there is concern about incremental deployment then we should work on this aspect.
I also believe the 16 bit solution is the way forward if people wish to do any more on this at this point. Thanks, Chris. [as wg-member]
/hannes
On 23.10.2024, at 00:50, Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,Chris:
Please elaborate clearly your technical reviews for the updates
of the newly proposed Big-TLV solution.
I can copy the updates again at here and state their effects
clearly.(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/
dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ )Please give your analysis before
you make any conclusions:
A new version of Big-TLV document has been
posted(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv), to
try to give the community one general way to solve the Big TLV problem.
The main changes from the previous versions are the followings:
1) Add one "Identification" field within the container TLV(type TBD1), to
function as the key for any sliced TLV, and is TLV code point independent.
2) Add one "Flag" field, define currently the "F" bit to indicate whether
the piece of container is the first piece(F bit is set to 1), or not (F bit is unset)
3) Put all the sliced pieces within the newly defined container TLV(type
TBD1).
4) Define some rules for the "Split and Glue" procedures(may be
re-optimizer later after the WG discussions)
The updated version erases the necessity of defining the "key" information
for every IS-IS (Possible Big) TLV code point, and also the necessity of per-TLV
capability announcement.
I would like to hear your detail analysis, especially as the WG chairs, for
the above statements.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:15, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps
<[email protected]> wrote:
Those changes don't appear to address what the WG already
decided against. The view of the WG was that a new Big TLV
for doing this was not going to work. Given the name of this
work is Big TLV, that doesn't seem to have changed. So why
should the WG be spending even more time on a solution they
already discussed, debated and discarded?
Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg chair]
On Oct 22, 2024, at 06:47, Aijun Wang
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Chris:
No, we have made some significant updates.
Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr
/dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ for more information.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
On Oct 22, 2024, at 17:04, 【外部账号】Christian
Hopps <[email protected]> wrote:
Is this the same thing that Huaimo has already
presented to the WG, that the WG decided was not the
way it wanted to go?
Thanks,
Chris.
"Aijun Wang" <[email protected]> writes:
Hi, Yingzhen:
I would like to request 10-15minutes to make the
presentation for the
“IS-IS Extension for Big TLV”
The related information are the followings:
Draft Name: IS-IS Extension for Big TLV
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv
/
Presenter: Aijun Wang
Desired Slot Length: 10-15minutes.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
发件人: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] 代表
Yingzhen Qu
发送时间: 2024年10月12日 3:54
收件人: lsr <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs
<[email protected]>
主题: [Lsr] IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests
Hi,
The draft agenda for IETF 121 has been posted:
IETF 121 Meeting Agenda
The LSR session is scheduled on Thursday Session
I 09:30-11:30, Nov 7th, 2024.
Please send slot requests to [email protected]
before the end of the day
Wednesday Oct 23. Please include draft name and
link, presenter, desired
slot length including Q&A.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
