tion.
"
Brgds,
-Original Message-
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Van De Velde, Gunter
(Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 11:10
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); i...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Signalling ERLD (I
authors to work out.)
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia
> - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:10 AM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; i...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org;
> spr...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Signal
Hi Gunter,
In that case, I concur with you that option (2) is better than the others. My
only difference in opinion is that ERLD not have its own separate TLV but
instead get advertised as a new MSD sub-type - it is just a different encoding.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Van
Indeed, the debate that made BGP-LS to go down the ERLD path is of pragmatic
motivation.
The major Readable Label Depth use-case is entropy. Hence, if the ERLD TLV is
available, then ELC can be implicitly assumed. No pragmatic reason to signal
separately, as it just make things more complex
