Re: [Bgp-autoconf] Short comparison of the different documents.

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Warren,

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 05:50:18PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
> What I'm not sure about is if it is acceptable for a device to send
> multiple LLDP messages - I've even read some of the 802.1AB spec to try
> figure this out -- Section "9.1.3 Frame reception" seems to imply that new
> information replaces old information, but I didn't explicitly see something
> saying that this (wildly hacky) option is not allowed.

I think the best analogy is this is the RIP protocol: Throw out the old stuff.

> Fair -- but I think that it would be useful to better document that --
> currently it just says: "Session Group-ID Sub-TLV is an opaque 4-octet value
> that is used to represent a category of BGP session that is supported on
> the interface."

When the rumors of the design team were spun up, work to rev the spec was
halted.  

> Adding some text saying that operators can define whatever the hell they
> would like in here - also, can I have multiple of these? I currently "tag"
> routes with all sorts of communities, I might like to be able to annotate
> that this is an External Facing, Spine, Managed node. I could encode that
> into 3 of the 4 bytes, but I might prefer to attach 3 separate Session
> Group-IDs

A use case I hadn't necessarily considered.  I think this was mostly that
the LLDP was scoped to interfaces and thus you'd likely have a single group
"namespace".

For the more general case where we may have different scoping that links we
may wish to use more than one.  So, perhaps something to add to the use
cases.

-- Jeff