Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-lid-extension-01.txt

[Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 2018-02-05 at 13:00 +0100, Henning Rogge wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Rick Taylor
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2018-02-05 at 11:01 +0100, Henning Rogge wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I think I like the new text two, its easy to read and introduce
> > > the
> > > new concept quickly.
> > 
> > Thank you (and Georg as well) very much!
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only thing I am concerned about is the "empty" flags field...
> > > do
> > > we already have an usecase for this?
> > 
> > I must admit, I copy and pasted the text from elsewhere, and then
> > realized I had no flags.
> > 
> > However, one possible flag could used to distinguish between Links
> > to
> > Destinations with an IP address (addressable destinations/ Layer 3
> > radio net) and Links to  Infrastructure (no IP address, just a
> > subnet).
> >  Although this extension doesn't need to differentiate, it might be
> > useful for the router to know the difference when used with other
> > extensions (hop control perhaps).
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to look at the prefix length of the IP?
> 
> > > If not, we could remove it and introduce it (if necessary) in an
> > > extension... we could discover the existence of an (optional)
> > > flags
> > > field by comparing the length of the link-id TLV with the (known)
> > > value of the link-id-length TLV.
> > 
> > Yes, if a flags field was needed later, a 'Link Identifiers Flags'
> > extension could introduce it legitimately.
> 
> So what do you think, just drop the flags field?

I'm happy to drop them if no-one can think of a use for them.

Rick