On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:28 AM Henk Smit <henk.i...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >... > > There are two types of problems. > 1) Short-term problems. Which have to be fixed asap. > 2) Long-term problems. Which need a proper solution. > Container TLVs are not a good short-term solution, and not a good long-term > solution. > > The split TLV problem has been solved for the short term. > The multipart-TLV fix has been implemented by multiple vendors. It has been > deployed in multiple production networks. > It works. There is no need for a 2nd short-term solution. > > Your 2nd solution also is not backwards compatible. So it has no benefits of > the multipart-TLV solution. > I see 0 benefit of having container TLVs over the multipart-TLV solution. > Neither do most other people here in the working-group. Can you not clearly > see that when you read the responses? > > If we want to think of a better solution, we should fix this properly. > As Hannes already suggested: the proper fix is to bump the IS-IS protocol > version, and have 16-bit Type and 16-bit Value TLVs.
I assume you mean 16-bit Length, not Value. See the E-L1FS and E-L2FS Extended Flooding Scopes in RFC 7356. Still uses IS-IS protocol version number 1. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > This is a huge change. And not backwards compatible. > > I am a fan of rule #12 in RFC 1925. Keep your protocols simple. > 16-bit Types and 16-bit Value TLVs are a simple concept. > They don't change anything to the algorithms or behaviour of IS-IS. > It's just "a small matter of programming" to implement them. > > My countryman Edsger Dijkstra (you might have heard of him) has said this: > ".Elegance is not a dispensable luxury but a factor that decides between > success and failure." > Elegance means: simple and yet effective. > Multipart TLVs are an ugly hack, imho. But so are container TLVs. > We already have a (working and deployed) short-term solution. > If we're gonna have a 2nd solution, it should be elegant. Not yet another > hack. > > Just my own opinion. > Not my employer's. But I think both my colleagues, as well as most other > people on this list, agree with me. > > Kind regards, > henk. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
