Re: Vendor Private Extension

[Bruce Cole <[e-mail]>]

> > I misread and thought you were talking about two extensions with the 
> > same vendor ID.  To handle concurrent vendor-extensions with different 
> > IDs, lets simply relax the requirement that extensions may occur only once, 
> > for this particular TLV.  One could already possibly interpret things this 
> > way, as the vendor-private extension is supposed to be ignored when the 
> > vendor ID does not match the station that is doing the processing.
> 
> Why add the complexity to the parsing by allowing multiple occurances 
> of this specific extension and this one only?????

In order to allow the format of the extension to remain vendor-private
(besides the vendor ID), as intended.

> If you have already developed the mechanics for the 
> NBMA Subnetwork ID Extension, NHRP Forward NHS Record Extension, or
> NHRP Reverse NHS Record Extension then you already have the machinery
> you will need.  Why recreate the wheel?

With what you propose, you potentially have a single extension with
sub-sections that need to be skipped over, and other sub-section(s) which need
to be processed.  This is effectively causing nesting of TLVs, which
I think is more complex than the alternative.

Either scheme will work, maybe one can be picked next week.