On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 8:36 PM Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking as a WG member. > > The following text is in section 7.3: > " > > Implementations SHOULD NOT send > multiple TLVs unless MP-TLV is applicable to the TLV and the amount > of information which is required to be sent exceeds the capacity of a > single TLV. For example, when additional space is required in an > existing TLV, as long as there is space in the TLV, information > SHOULD NOT be split into multiple TLVs. If there is no space in the > current LSP to fit the now larger TLV, the TLV SHOULD be moved to a > new LSP. > > " > To me, as a developer, it is clear that MP-TLV SHOULD NOT be used unless > this TLV is too big to even fit into one LSP . If there is a configuration > knob, it has to be enabled. > It's not that clear necessarily. The sliding TLV code in ISIS is some of the most complex pieces and it's implemented everywhere differently IME and it may make perfect sense for starting to issue multiple TLVs instead of padding one to max (although yes, it should be SHOULD NOT, that's the right level of spec I think) --- tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
