RE: encoding link id for unnumbered interfaces

["Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com>]

Yakov,

-> I'd like to suggest that we replace Link Local Identifier sub-TLV
-> and Link Remote Identifier sub-TLV (in both ISIS and OSPF) with a
-> single sub-TLV that would contain both Link Local Identifier and Link 
-> Remote Identifier.

-> Any objections ?

  I prefer : different sub-TLVs. That gives consistency and
             easy modification in future.

  I suggest: Rather make Remote Identifier *mandatory* when
             Local Identifier is present. This is definitely
             bad but little better than your suggestion. :-)

  I like   : Make both Local and Remote Identifiers are optional
             (just like local and remote IP address TLVs in TE)
             and leave the decision to individual vendors 
             (local decision). 

  Is there any scenario where this causes interop issues?!?!
  Is that you are worried about *Tag, Length* extra memory
  consumption?

  Remember, I am _not_ objecting your suggestion, in any case.

Venkata.