Folks –
The term “backwards compatibility” is getting abused here.
What does “backwards compatibility” mean in the context of a routing protocol
like IS-IS?
It means that protocol extensions can be advertised and safely used in the
presence of legacy nodes (which do not understand the new
Hello All,
It seems Big-TLV is backward compatible. Backward compatible is an important
point that should be considered when we introduce new features in a protocol,
especially the widely used protocols like ISIS, BGP etc.
Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com
Huaimo Chen writes:
[HC]: It seems that the implementation of an idea/solution in a draft
is not required by LSR WG for the draft to be adopted, or even for
the draft to become RFC.
[Chair hat on]
It is true that we don't need implementations in order to adopt drafts;
however, there
per TLV may not be particularly good in lots of cases
1) some TLVs contain tons stuff which triggers all kind of "does that
support this" variants
2) most operators do not know ISIS TLV by heart but RFPs are basically
structured along RFCs so that's the resoluton I'm most concerned with
Hi Les,
My responses are inline below with [HC].
Best Regards,
Huaimo
Linda –
When we have polarized positions (for whatever reasons), coming to consensus is
often difficult. Each side tends to dismiss the arguments of the other –
sometimes regardless of merit.
So, maybe the following won’t
An independant review draft-ississ-sr-yang so top posting.
Not Ready is my take for two major issues (was three but I m confused).
The I-D defines a raft of identity for the SR flags; it uses different names to
those used in the base documents, it gives no explanation why it has done this
and
