Dear Les,
Issue #2 is the limited size of a single TLV/sub-TLV.
>
> This is addressed by using 16 bit type/length fields.
>
Can you please kindly elaborate how you fit 65K octet TLV into 9K octets of
jumbo frames (max practical MTU) on a link used for flooding between any
two nodes ?
RFC7356 say
(Note I have changed the subject line (previously was " RE: [Lsr] Re: [Further
Discussion]It's time to find one general solution to Big-TLV problem Re: IETF
121 LSR Slot Requests".
I did this for two reasons:
1)WG Chairs and WG Members have made it clear that the ongoing discussion of
Big TL
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9667
Title: Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs
Author: T. Li, Ed.,
P. Psenak, Ed.,
H. Chen,
L. Jalil,
S
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9666
Title: Area Proxy for IS-IS
Author: T. Li,
S. Chen,
V. Ilangovan,
G. Mishra
Status: Experimental
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:28 AM Henk Smit 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.
>
> Th
Hi Aijun,
[as wg-member] Please see Henk Smit’s response. I fully support what he said.
We have a short term solution that the WG agrees is sufficient, and it is
explicitly not Big TLV. Likewise container TLVs are not a long-term elegant
solution.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Oct 28, 2024, at 09:22, A
Hi, Acee and Henk:
Thanks for your acknowledgements that current MP-TLV is one short term solution.
I want to point out that even the “short term” solution solves only partially
only two TLVs(TLV 22 and TLV 135), because it defines “what constitutes a key”
for these two TLVs.
It doesn’t give t
The WG adoption is completed and the documents are accepted. Please republish
as draft-ietf-lsr-isis-pics--00 documents (when the draft window reopens).
While we didn't as much support as we would have liked, we didn't get any
objections and there was a lot of support at IETF 120. Also, th
Speaking as WG Chair:
> On Oct 31, 2024, at 10:17 AM, John Drake
> wrote:
>
> This is not a technical discussion and I think it's time for the chairs to
> step in.
>
> Once the WG has made a decision, based upon rough consensus, you can't simply
> reiterate the same unsuccessful arguments f
Speaking as WG member:
I also agree totally with this technical summary on the preferred short and
long term solutions.
I'd add that the motivation for a cleaner long-term solution hasn't heretofore
been strong enough to override the backward compatibility and effort. Given
that we haven't mo
This is not a technical discussion and I think it's time for the chairs to
step in.
Once the WG has made a decision, based upon rough consensus, you can't simply
reiterate the same unsuccessful arguments forever as you have done multiple
times in the past in hopes of changing the WG consensus.
Henk,
A very sensible email.
John
On Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 06:28:32 AM PDT, Henk Smit
wrote:
Please stop. > I suggest we can have a container TLV No.
There are two types of problems.
1) Short-term problems. Which have to be fixed asap. 2) Long-term proble
This is not a technical discussion and I think it's time for the chairs to
step in.
Once the WG has made a decision, based upon rough consensus, you can't simply
reiterate the same unsuccessful arguments forever as you have done multiple
times in the past in hopes of changing the WG consensus.
Hi, John:
Do you some technical arguments?
Or please reply the technical issues that raised at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/p0BCxfjCVo7Pjb9hK_Ot1hQgJHY/
I would like to hear.
I think you have noticed that we ignore your non senses response before several
times.
If you have no an
Please stop.
> I suggest we can have a container TLV
No.
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 spli
Why are we still discussing this? The WG has decided that the Big-TLV draft
is not where want to go, so continued discussion is simply a DoS attack on the
WG's mailing list.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2024 at 10:34:38 PM PDT, duzongp...@foxmail.com
wrote:
Hi, Aijun and Chiris
Som
16 matches
Mail list logo
