Re: Vendor Private Extension

Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com> Tue, 11 July 1995 22:21 UTC

Message-Id: <199507112203.PAA11572@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com>
Cc: Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com>, rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Re: Vendor Private Extension
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jul 1995 17:31:49 EDT." <199507112131.RAA08047@shovel.acton.timeplex.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:03:40 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.

(And also relax the requirement that extensions must exist in the NHRP 
request if they are to appear in the response, as you already did in 
your proposed text).

Vendor Private Extension James Luciani
Re: Vendor Private Extension Bruce Cole
Re: Vendor Private Extension James Luciani
Re: Vendor Private Extension Bruce Cole
Re: Vendor Private Extension James Luciani
Re: Vendor Private Extension Bruce Cole
Re: Vendor Private Extension James Luciani
Re: Vendor Private Extension Andrew Smith
Re: Vendor Private Extension Trevor Blackwell
Re: Vendor Private Extension Telford001
Re: Vendor Private Extension Curtis Villamizar
Re: Vendor Private Extension Tony Li
Re: Vendor Private Extension Curtis Villamizar
Re: Vendor Private Extension Tony Li
Re: Vendor Private Extension Trevor Blackwell