On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote: > When a NVE is initialized or re-started, it uses Virtual Network scoped > instances of the IS-IS to announce all the Virtual Networks in which it is > participating. > > > > The current draft-dunbar-nvo3-nva-mapping-distribution-01 suggests using > the bit map to represent the supported VNs. > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Type | (1 byte) > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Length | (1 byte) > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | RESV | Start VN ID | (2 bytes) > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | VNID bit-map.... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 2. Enabled-VN TLV > Hi Linda,
First a couple of meta comments on the draft: - Sizes of type and lengths in TLVs are inconsistent (some 16 bits, some 32 bits). It might be just as well to make all of them 16 bits. - For the above, I think the Start VNID field is 4 bytes not 2 bytes. - Please avoid implicitly setting constraints on the data plane in the definition of control plane. For instance, I've already made arguments that VN ID might be thirty-two bits, and there's little cost to defining thirty-two bit VN IDs in the control plane. > > > > > For 24-bits VN ID, there could be 16million VNs. Even with the “Start VN ID” > listed, the number of bytes for the bitmap can be very large. > > > > Therefore, I think it is better to have a flag indicating if the VNs are > listed individually, Upper/Lower ranges, or bit mapped. > I wouldn't use a flag for that, it's probably cleaner to define another TLV type that gives a list of VNIDs. Either the list or bit-map can be used interchangeably. Tom > > > Any other suggestions? > > > > Linda > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
