The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Vishal,

> I support. There was one question raised by Adrian though that
> was not answered at the WG meeting, so it might be useful
> for us to consider on the list. It was "do we need a way to support
> arbitrary TLVs?"
>
> I believe this is one of the two solutions proposed in the
> draft, and it would be good to get WG opinion on that.

Actually, it is the only solution proposed in the draft. The 'need' for TLVs is a minor
corroborative reasons used to discard an alternative solution.

In the currently proposed solution, additional TLVs come for free.
We *could* simplify the current solution (by the order of a type and length field) and
dispense with arbitrary TLVs.

The authors felt that not taking the opportunity to add TLVs would be seen as a mistake in
future years.
The similar OSPF solution has TLVs I believe.

Would welcome more opinions.

Cheers,
Adrian