[writing as individual contributor without AD hat] Hi folks, LSR WG,
I am trying to figure out if RFC6119 has a typo or if it was the intent. In RFC6119 we see the following procedure: "There MUST NOT be more than one IPv6 SRLG TLV for a given link." https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6119#section-4.4 So, this forbids more as a single IPV6 SRLG TLV for a single link. The RFC is very clear and formal in this procedure. No issue understanding this. But this seems to deviate from prior SRLG TLV procedures. According RFC8919<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8919#section-4.3>, its possible to have multiple Type 238 TLVs for a particular link. "Multiple TLVs for the same link MAY be advertised." Also according to RFC5307<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5307#section-1.4>, for TLV138 the following statement is made. "The SRLG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units." - So for me its possible to have multiple type 138 TLVs as well. So not sure why this restriction is there only for Type 139 TLVs? Was this intentional or a accidental typo that slipped into RFC6119? Thoughts? Brgds, G/ (as individual contributor)
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
