On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Andrew McDonald wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
But there are no defined IPv4 Router Alert Option values (other than
zero), and it would be inappropriate to change the semantics of any
existing usages (too late for that) and it would also be
inappropriate
to consider doing this in the absense of a specific new application
that would make use of a new value. This document does not propose
such a new usage.
It is not clear to me that there are "no defined IPv4 Router Alert
Option values (other than zero)". The counter-example (as
identified in section 3 of the draft we're discussing) is RSVP
aggregation in RFC3175 (in particular sections 1.4.9 and 6).
Thanks for this reference. After digging around some more, it
appears clear to me that there's a little bit of a disconnect
someplace. I would have expected the code points defined for IPv6
and IPv4 to be wholly identical, down to the point of there being a
single IANA registry.
As it stands right now, there is no registry for IPv4, so the real
reference is 2113, which only defines 0. Yes, 3175 talk about
defining other values but if you read the IANA considerations section
it is not at all clear that they meant to extend this to IPv4, tho
they certainly should have.
In any case, I agree that this is ample precedent for allocating code
points for RAO, and undercuts my arguments completely.
Given that I no longer have a leg to stand on, I'll sit down and shut
up. ;-)
One request tho: while you're allocating a new code point, could you
please clean up the IANA situation? Please request that there be a
single code point registry for both IPv6 and IPv4 RAO that includes
all of the currently defined code points.
Thanks,
Tony
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
