Re: ForCES TLV size

Hi Weiming,

On Mon, 2007-13-08 at 11:02 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Jamal，
> 
> Firstly， I agree it is quite possible the 16bit Length  shortage in Path-Data TLV will 
> lead to severe problems for implementations.
> 
> Whereas, I just a little worry the solution proposal you presented below may also lead 
> to a complex situlation for the usage of Path-Data TLV. 
> 
> Is it possible we just define that a Path-Data object is encapsulated by a data format of 
> ILV rather than a TLV? This just extends the Length from 16bits to 32bits.
> 
> Other TLVs may face less data encapsulation than the Path-Data TLV, so we may just still 
> keep them as TLVs.
> 

There is a small problem:
The LFB select TLV "L" part is 16 bits. So the underlying data length
cannot exceed 16 bits. We can change that too to be an ILV, but then i
think at some point when 32 bit is no longer sufficient (infiniband has
64K MTU for example) then this wont solve it either.

cheers,
jamal