The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Nov> msg00219



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Arbitrary TLVs in draft-farrel-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-00.txt

  • From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:34:07 -0500
  • Cc: "Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>, "MPLS wg" <mpls@UU.NET>

Hi Adrian,

At 12:50 PM 11/26/2003 +0000, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>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.

absolutely right; by the way, we already found a few interesting uses of 
them for the IGP.

Cheers

JP.

>Would welcome more opinions.
>
>Cheers,
>Adrian