Hi all, I applaud the spirit of altruistic cooperation. Let’s have more of that.
Cheers, Tony > On Jul 17, 2026, at 8:24 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg=40cisco.com > at dmarc.ietf.org <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tony – > > Thanx for the positive response. > Yes – we could write a draft specific to defining the new capabilities TLV – > I’ll work on that. > > Note that my intent is for a simple bit string – not supporting a set of > sub-TLVs. > > Les > > From: Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 12:59 AM > To: lsr <[email protected]> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: Comments on draft-prz-lsr-ash-packets-00 > > having said that, Les, if you write quickly a draft on "IIH link capability > TLV" (since we already have a link capability RFC but only in 22) I'm more > than happy to grab a bit there (or help you with the draft itself) rather > than defining it in this draft. I see already other interesting thing like > .e.g advertising MTUs in it to prevent the problems we are fighting using > padding (and maybe things like v4/v6 forwarding capability to deal with > prefix/nexthop variations, BFD capability for auto-config and other ideas) > ... > > -- tony > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 9:10 AM Tony Przygienda <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Tony Przygienda <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 9:10 AM > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-prz-lsr-ash-packets-00 > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 3:31 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > 1)I see you have now defined a TLV for hellos to advertise the capability to > support ASH > > >From Section 5.1: > > " The ASH Capability TLV is a zero-length TLV (type TBD) included in IIH > PDUs." > > I ask that you consider defining something more generic/extensible so that we > can use the same TLV codepoint to advertise other per link capabilities in > the future (yes - I have some in mind...) > The TLV would be formatted analogous to the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability > Attribute Flags sub-TLV defined in RFC 7794 - but would be a TLV (not a > sub-TLV) only to be sent in hellos. > > Link Capability TLV > Type - TBD > Length - Number of octets in the Value field > Value - Extensible bit string > > We create a registry to define the bit assignments. You get the first bit (or > perhaps two bits if you want to advertise ASH support per level). > > This is more flexible and forward looking. > > Les, sure, easily done. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
