There is no necessary to concatenate the difference type IS-IS TLVs together, but it must be done for the MP-TLV pieces.
I have never seen any example that there is no any length signaling for segmentation one big-TLV and can concatenate it correctly without the right length indication. It’s pity the LSR WG will endorse such proposal. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Mar 29, 2025, at 08:16, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > > Hi Robert, > >> Sorry if I was not very clear but my point was that MP-TLV may be coming in >> multiple LSPs - something which to the best of my understanding is not the >> case today with any TLV type. On that basis as LSP length natural boundary >> is gone it seems sky is the limit now. > > > This is incorrect. A TLV may appear in many different framgments. For > example, a router may have multiple adjacencies. These may be spread out > across fragments. > > T > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
