Re: Vendor attributes in TE LSAs - (Sent first reply prematurely)

[Jeff Parker <[e-mail]>]

Vishwas -
        I don't see anyone saying that there will be confusion about who
"owns" a subtlv.  I think the issue is that if company X devises a way to
convey, say, stoats and weasels in a TLV, and company B devises a way to
convey weasels and ferrets, we will not have a way for the weasels to
interoperate.  All of this will be done under the wraps, and the IETF and WG
will never get a chance to point out that the ferret scheme doesn't scale,
or that there is already a way to convey stoats, or that maybe weasels don't
belong in an IGP: perhaps due to "size, and refresh rate" type of issues.

- jeff parker

> Hi Acee,
>
> Though you can have vendor specific TLV encodings, the
> issue is there may be a clash in the TLV or Sub-TLV values.
>
> By using an SMI enterprise code or OUI to distinguish
> between various vendor specific implementations, we
> have one value that can be used by vendors instead of
> taking any TLV values, and we do not confuse information
> by various vendors, which are used for different purposes.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> Aside from any technical details, I don't agree with this draft
> philosophically. In essence, it is a proposal to standardise on
> a mechanism to be non-standard. More specifically, it removes
> the OSPF WG, TE WG, and IETF in general from reviewing the vendor
> specific TLVs. The contents, size, and refresh rate of these TLVs
> are unknown.
>
> By definition, there is no interoperability. The same set of problems
> will undoubtedly be solved in multiple ways by different vendors using
> different vendor specific TLV encodings.
>
> Acee