Hi Tony, > Please see figure 2.
Ok I thought this is all about this :) To me such advertisement is useful .. just like Henk's idea to include and flood node names in ASCII characters turned super useful - especially when you are at the CLI prompt and running some show commands. Sure one could say - go and ask your management plane to decode NSAPs. And I think as far as "dump truck" we better stay off that topic as the amount of non base routing extensions which went into ISIS is orders of magnitude larger then what is being suggested here - needless to say this is about flooding so squarely applies to the base protocol. I am yet to see a fully working multi vendor management system which operators would be logging into instead of ssh to the routers to do live network troubleshooting. But staying tuned .... Thx, R. PS. Side comment: Apparently some who are jumping onto dump trucks win elections .... On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> If you want 'leaderless' then you simply remove the current discussion >>> from the algorithm draft and only support manual, ubiquitous configuration >>> in your implementation. >>> >> >> Could you kindly quote which specific text in the version 07 are you >> referring to ? >> > > Please see figure 2. > > From what I see the enablement of this optimization can be done node by >> node by configuration. What's wrong with that especially if perhaps this >> optimization only needs to run on very densely connected nodes ? >> >> The advertisement of new sub_TLV of the ISIS Router Capability TLV is >> stated as "SHOULD" and has informational character. >> > > If that is the intent, then it should not be advertised as a capability. > It should be in the management plane. Once again, IS-IS is not a dump > truck. > > Tony > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
