Hi Acee, I think the motivation below makes sense. Actually this is the way people had already been doing, not only operators.
"One major benefit of using administrative tags rather than IANA defined TLVs or sub-TLVs to indicate different services is to facilitate the rapid deployment of new services without any need for the standardization of those TLVs or sub-TLVs. However, there are some special use cases where the service to be advertised has one or more attributes which need to be advertised as well. In such case, the administrative tag is not much applicable anymore" Personally I wish one more generalized mechanism can exist instead of one Node tag and one proprietary TLV. Anyway, I'd like to see this I-D can go further and "lot of things we can further improve" at the same time, as Uma mentioned. Regards Eric > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > 发送时间: 2016年3月17日 10:09 > 收件人: OSPF WG List > 主题: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service > Deployment" > > We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems like a > useful > mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and user and > third-party > applications to convey application-specific information learned from other > OSPF > routers. In many respects, this has already been envisioned for OSPF Node > Tags. > Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, 2016. > > Thanks, > Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
