Hi Shraddha,
Thanks for the confirmation. These changes have been already reflected in
the latest version.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:19 AM Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> Snipped to open comments.
>
>
>
> KT> Since we are talking about SRv6 Locators, that are associated with the
> node
Snipped to open comments.
KT> Since we are talking about SRv6 Locators, that are associated with the node
and not a LAN, I am not sure these fields hold much relevance. Please let me
know if I am missing something.
I agree there is no relevance, but its important to specify there is no
Tony –
I am only expressing my POV on the proposed capability advertisement– which I
have shared with you and other authors privately. I was not discussing what
is/is not in the draft.
A few responses inline to correct misinterpretations on your part.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent:
> MP-TLVs are sent by routers not simply because they have the ability to do
> so, but because the configuration requires them to send more information
> about an object than will fit in a single TLV. This means that any attempt to
> suppress generation of a MP-TLV based on the current
NOTE: I am speaking here as a WG member – not as a co-author of the draft.
I am very much in agreement with Gunter’s POV – and I would caution that even
those who may find the idea of advertising “Multi-part TLV Capability’
appealing should temper their expectations.
MP-TLVs are sent by
Tony
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:26 AM Tony Li wrote:
>
> Hi Gunter,
>
> I am having troubles understanding the value of ‘The Multi-part TLV
> Capability’ flag.
>
> What would break if ‘*Multi-part TLV Capability*’ flag would not exist?
>
>
>
> A system that supported MP-TLVs would not be able
Hi Gunter,
> I am having troubles understanding the value of ‘The Multi-part TLV
> Capability’ flag.
> What would break if ‘Multi-part TLV Capability’ flag would not exist?
A system that supported MP-TLVs would not be able to determine that there were
other systems in the area that did not
draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01 is a fine informational read and described the
playing field of multi-part tlv’s well.
I am having troubles understanding the value of ‘The Multi-part TLV Capability’
flag.
What would break if ‘Multi-part TLV Capability’ flag would not exist?
IS-IS has been
