Hi Huaimo,
Let me try to explain you.
CASE 1: Let's say TLV 22 all the node understand. RFC doesn't specify
multiple occurrences of TLV 22. All the node parse the TLV and install in
various database [ISIS, TED] etc...
Now if there are more information need to pack TLV 22,
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-00.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title: Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
Authors: Ran Chen
Detao Zhao
Peter Psenak
Ketan
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-00.txt is now available. It is a work
item of the Link State Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title: Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS
Authors: Parag Kaneriya
Tony Li
Antoni Przygienda
Shraddha Hegde
Chris Bowers
The adoption call for has ended.
The document is adopted, and with a strong consensus.
Authors please resubmit as draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-00.
There have been other solutions presented during the adoption call as well as
previously, but as is clear from this adoption call the other solutions
The LSR WG has placed draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv in state
Adopted by a WG (entered by Christian Hopps)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv/
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
Hi Les and Parag,
The following are two definitions from you. You said they are the same in
meaning. That is your opinions. But I think they are different. If they are the
same and we use definition 1, then no protocol extension (with a new
advertisement) is backwards compatible.
Definition 1
All,
The WG adoption call has completed and this draft has been adopted by the WG.
Please republish the draft as draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-00.txt.
Thanks,
Acee
> On Nov 17, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> LSR WG,
>
> This starts the Working Group adoption call
Hi Huaimo,
Looks like you derived understanding that Les and I am not in agreement which
is not true. I agree with Authors of this draft and fully support it.
Regards
Parag
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 10:03 PM
To: Huaimo Chen ;
Huaimo -
We are not making progress here - and I doubt that any additional posts from me
will help - so I am not going to respond further.
I only want to point out that there is no difference between Parag and myself
as regards the meaning of "backwards compatibility".
The fact that you think
Hi Les,
My responses are inline below with [HC].
Best Regards,
Huaimo
Huaimo –
THis discussion seems to be getting less and less meaningful – but I will
respond.
[HC]: We are discussing about different ways for TLVs > 255. Why is this
discussion getting less and less meaningful?
Regarding
>Legacy node gets half information result in the inconsistent view of network
>(for example TED
>[traffic engineering database] inconsistency lead to many network related
>issue.)
>hence legacy node getting half information is not backward consistent.
>From your statement, your definition of
11 matches
Mail list logo
