Jari, I wrote some comments when you first posted the question but
wouldn't send, doubting its relevance.
Since you re-ask...
I agree assigning routing header types should happen according to a
certain procedure. I guess IANA is better for this. And I agree with
the proposal in draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header-00 which says:
" New Routing Type values are allocated through IETF Review or IESG
Approval [RFC5226].
Note that two experimental values (253 and 254) are already available
for use [RFC4727]."
Side-issue - there is a metric constant in RIPng rfc2080 which is not
reserved by IANA yet I believe it should.
The document defines valid values for this metric as 0, 1...16 and 0xFF.
16 is 'infinity' and 0xFF is 'next-hop RTE'. The other intermediary
values 17-254 don't seem to be used. The document doesn't have a IANA
section unfortunately. My problem is that I would like to propose
reservation of 0xFE for a new particular metric.
IANA does reserve RIP Types (not metrics)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rip-types
Or maybe RIP is no longer that much used, or maybe IANA doesn't need to
reserve these RIP metric numbers, or maybe...
Alex
Jari Arkko a écrit :
I spoke about this a little bit in the meeting and got a few
comments. But as far as I can tell, I never got any responses to my
question in March on the mailing list. Perhaps this is a proper time
to ask again... this is really a minor thing, but I would like to fix
a bug in the IANA registries when I see one. Comments and
suggestions would be appreciated.
Jari Arkko wrote:
In the context of reviewing existing IANA registries for various
protocols, we came up with a couple of missing things. The first
issue is that http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters does
not point to RFC 2780 which defines the IANA rules for hop-by-hop
and destination options. This is being fixed by IANA.
The other thing that we noticed was that routing header types do
not appear to have IANA rules. While this is a really small issue,
I like to fix a bug when I see one :-) So, Scott and I wrote a
draft that defines the rules:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-iana-routing-header
The new rule requires IETF review before allocation of a new RH
type. We have a couple of questions:
1) Does anyone know of an RFC where this would have been specified?
Its easy to miss one...
2) Are people happy with the rule in the draft?
3) Is the working group interested in adopting this document and
moving it forward?
Jari
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
