Les, sure, good enough to start. sub-TLVs can be defined to show up after the bitstring into the TLV at any later date of course
-- tony On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 5:24 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[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]> > wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Tony Przygienda* <[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]> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 3:31 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > [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]
