IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Mandatory sub-TLVs in Next Hop and Router-ID

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Wed, 24 May 2017 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD0312EAEA for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TWtcKWRZ2Pec for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA51129AF1 for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 07:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1495634812; bh=O7jg4XCKhy+/cQNgf7HoXIJuAiyMJmkIQHZrE+IZ1K0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=PyUmxebm4wQQKTxdrKCg+lsPAFdvsYixIYM19XQL7h4Wz2CKn4Fmo7ueTP6DaiN2V dZAj3lGPGViKGZn+N/Vi/4wSOCAFfttbCdGCLI36BiIFY0ZhMamOP64TpYmOPwkTRS 2H3Ohyj/idHl2iqt09ihW1/LtR1PRAemtD06vY3I+OTu2MaU+DBqY+60LOMATaYzGd HjG+9DAR9mSHnnvmy7u9iyWSK4bTJX+SDOEeR+wYm+U/yvNJVhghUNYiIhBwo4FyDi K+a9G8Z/15Kb0Oncl+HIltKKOC9fzXc6HhkT+aeJlbmhi+gITPLFZCNQubnAWYT90L oNmcmNBRs+mwA==
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: babel@ietf.org
References: <87y3tmbg1e.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87zie2gylh.fsf@alrua-x1> <87h90abbp0.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:06:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87h90abbp0.wl-jch@irif.fr> (Juliusz Chroboczek's message of "Wed, 24 May 2017 15:56:27 +0200")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87fufucps5.fsf@alrua-kau>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/IfFoRfEudiG-xj4dnZtPH3qcjtY>
Subject: Re: [babel] Mandatory sub-TLVs in Next Hop and Router-ID
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:06:59 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

> As I've said, I don't have any strong preferences either case, so if
> anyone has any usage scenarios for mandatory sub-TLVs on Next Hop or
> Router-Id TLVs, I'm listening.

Specifying source addresses for the next hop? Extending the router-ID
size? Not sure these are actually something you'd want to do, just the
only things that came to mind...

> The one thing I think would be a mistake would be to leave this case
> underspecified, so we need to make a call.

This I can agree with :)

-Toke

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status