IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Mandatory processing TLVs by routers

Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com> Mon, 11 November 2013 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A9A21E8203 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xpliZgAp5N1c for <manet-dlep-rg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-x230.google.com (mail-qe0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD99721E8201 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id d4so4813621qej.35 for <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j/0XE7BDjTV05uISxkhOqEu8mpAOYZQHC/SHFh4m2bA=; b=kEm8FmokJeKPOH9+ZeX6wEFx0tm4J2VtfJUjPXmX8OvzlAQs3UzZcPlpDKNDHJqyGb CGS3U//EREPVuwR1ynptz5nHDS/c/5+i+jm0HwiVAeTUM7tXgVEYLebw7OprIozY4Ok2 yIO6EmNxsDrjoUi0j2Gi58PDf943UKoroyqrJVnKeEHv1OoEKutL392nzg3dXSJmmE9B nUfI+V6HdHJoJ4eaiiYdnWnrhzTQgkA8+p/NC2KjSpoym6ryhSMLdQ0Gqo///UtjY4sZ UnhaEyLe+pao22+wTYsVg8F5i0jRWgmuQlRv2VE0+w1hefXzA20S3zHUIQ5uPLhe+8CC YdAA==
X-Received: by 10.224.65.199 with SMTP id k7mr52221473qai.24.1384192022457; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.36.200 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:46:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <349D2FB7-896C-47AD-9815-9131FEBBCB45@cisco.com>
References: <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9192F7@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <CAK=bVC85XAXR3Zkwq+JwELF-dvgrKwbowWCvwvnjeVn7VStnbw@mail.gmail.com> <72FB622921C13746AD6349E70A8D9F307D9193CD@EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl> <5A8A5085482DA84995F4E70F5093AB50268E6C@XCH-BLV-503.nw.nos.boeing.com> <B2BA430A-F4E6-4DED-A7BB-7282A22802B7@inf-net.nl> <D02397F1-9D1B-4B36-81D0-4585ACDBA34A@gmail.com> <5D184300-2D97-4EC1-8D91-76D4A79B2BDA@inf-net.nl> <DDAE98C5-520E-4F8F-9F9B-2AB9A15A70EF@cisco.com> <F5164D41-0C8F-4E23-B2F8-F7CE4843131C@inf-net.nl> <349D2FB7-896C-47AD-9815-9131FEBBCB45@cisco.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:46:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuorV8V7y7rGyfoM2zLOKPBbRiRoo8ORuCU2OBM0MTgaSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stan Ratliff (sratliff)" <sratliff@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "DLEP Research Group (manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org)" <manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>, Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Subject: Re: [manet-dlep-rg] Mandatory processing TLVs by routers
X-BeenThere: manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DLEP Radio Group <manet-dlep-rg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet-dlep-rg>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dlep-rg>, <mailto:manet-dlep-rg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:47:04 -0000

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<sratliff@cisco.com> wrote:
> On another topic, to say that I disagree with "… Routers may ignore all TLVs…" would be an understatement. That's why TLVs are classified as MANDATORY or OPTIONAL. Routers (or modems, for that matter) are free to ignore OPTIONAL TLVs. But to mandate that something exist in a message, but then say "but you can ignore it"? Doesn't make any sense to me.

A good example is the "current link speed" TLV...

we demand that every radio provides one, but a router might just
decide to ignore it because its not necessary for this router.

Henning Rogge


-- 
We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered
long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to
set sail for the stars - Carl Sagan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email