Re: [mpls] Question on avoiding TLVs

Haoyu, Loa,

I think the important point here is that the parsing discussion is focused on the forwarding plane.  TLVs are pervasive in the control plane, where parsing is not a significant cost.

Tony

> On Jan 31, 2022, at 8:46 AM, Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Loa,
> 
> Usually TLV is used as a substructure in a header. For sub fields in a header, usually we don't have other choices than using TLV.  But for each header, the type of it is better to be indicated by the previous header to save a parsing state. 
> So all what I say is: as a principle, when designing a header, try not to embed its type in the header itself. Instead, before we get to this header, we should already know its type.
> 
> Moreover, TLV options in a header also increases the parsing cost. Each fixed size TLV needs two states. Each variable size TLV needs multiple states depending on the size of the option. So another advice is: if it is meant to be processed in hardware, then we should try to limit the use of TLV, and especially variable sized TLV, unless absolutely necessary.
> 
> Best,
> Haoyu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> 
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 3:27 AM
> To: mpls@ietf.org; Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
> Subject: Question on avoiding TLVs
> 
> Haoyu,
> 
> In the slides you uploaded to the "We should try the best to avoid TLV style and variable sized header".
> 
> MPLS is full of TLVs (LDP, RSVP/TE, LSP Ping, the OAM) are you suggesting we'd change this?
> 
> Given your advice above what should we do?
> 
> /Loa
> -- 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls