On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:25:15 AM Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote: > What we were debating is if we should use the LDP > capability TLV mechanism which LDP uses to advertise any > new capability not supported by previous implementations > versus overloading another TLV which was not meant for > capability discovery. As an operator, having to upgrade a non-compliant device that is not yet ready to run LDPv6 so that a neighboring LDPv6-capable device planning to run LDPv6 can still form LDPv4 adjacencies is quite heavy-handed. Upgrading a device for anything LDPv6 should, ideally, be in the interest of getting LDPv6 deployed, and not to prevent LDPv4 adjacency tear-down due to capability incompatibility. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile looking into adding a knob for an LDPv6-compliant device to tell it to have backwards compatibility with non-compliant devices on the wire. Since one would, in all likelihood, be upgrading a non-compliant device to make it compliant, the heavy-hand makes sense here since an operator needs to get the code in anyway. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.