Hi Yao, Thanks for your comments. Please see zzh> below.
Juniper Business Use Only From: liu.ya...@zte.com.cn <liu.ya...@zte.com.cn> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:17 PM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: [rtgwg] Re: Request for more discussion/feedback on draft-zzhang-rtgwg-router-info [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, I have a few comments/questions after reading the draft. 1. If the periodic message sending is not required, how would the Refresh Rate field be filled . Should a specific value or a flag defined for this purpose？ Zzh> We can use 0. I assume that’s only for one-time-ok-to-lose notifications. I’ve updated the draft in my local copy. 1. About section 2.5 flow redirection, besides 5 tuples, there's possibility that other fields would be used to identify a traffic flow, is there any consideration on this, e.g.,introducing optional fields such as user defined fields in Flow Redirection TLV for better compatibility? Zzh> In general, we try to avoid sub-TLVs to allow maximum packing and to simplify the processing, especially since some of the notifications are to be handled at very low level, as mentioned in the draft: The following TLVs are defined to allow maximum packing. If additional information needs to be advertised, new TLVs may be defined without using sub-TLVs to allow efficient encoding of additional information, or with sub-TLVs to allow flexibility but at the cost of processing complexity. Zzh> What are other fields that may be frequently used? 1. What's the value of Link ID field in the message header when BGP is used in the network. Zzh> The Link ID in the message header is the ID of the link on which the flooding happens. For example, you have five links 1~5 and on link 1 you flood info about links 2~5 then the Link ID in the message header is 1. Zzh> Thanks. Zzh> Jeffrey Regards, Yao
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
