Tony, I have always had high respect towards your opinion. I am simply asking questions and concerns as an individual. Hope not getting into company A is better than company B debate.
Linda From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 4:44 PM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv (11/17/2023 - 12/09/2023) Hi Linda, * Suppose the information to be carried by the Extended IS Reachability (type 22) (in Example 4.1) is larger than 255. Does it mean the recipient will receive 2 TLVs (both with the Type 22) in one LSA? For legacy routers, the second TLV (Type =22) might overwrite the first TLV. Yes, a legacy implementation may well have bugs. The proposal is to fix that: expect MP-TLVs. [Linda] Are you saying only the legacy implementation with bugs will be confused with two TLVs with the same Type in in one LSA? No. All implementations have bugs. This is reality. Implementations that do not understand MP-TLV may be confused. Correct implementations of MP-TLV support will not be confused. * Isn’t it more straightforward to have a new TYPE value for carrying the extra information beyond the 255 bytes? So, the legacy routers can ignore the TLVs with the unrecognized types. You could do that, but code points are not free. We certainly cannot afford another code point for each existing code point. Using just one code point is less than helpful: it forces us to aggregate information that has no business being aggregated. Ignoring information is a non-starter because it makes partial deployments fatal: some of the domain operates with some information and some of the domain operates with different information. [Linda] Why not consider having just one additional TYPE code with sub-types to indicate which original TLVs the value should be appended to? We have considered it. See all of Les’ emails for why it’s a bad idea. If it helps simplify this debate: we know that you work for Futurewei/Huawei and that the discussion has polarized into your Big-TLV faction vs. everyone else. Repetition of previously made points add zero value to the discussion. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
