On Jun 10, 2025, at 1:31 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2025, at 8:17 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
...
>>
>> If any historical use of a value in the remaining subranges 0-10, 50-51, or
>> 98-301, including values described as "Reserved for ...", doesn't match this
>> document, they lose. This includes 208, which is marked as "Reserved for an
>> unspecified link-layer type"; the pcap/dlt.h header for libpcap says "is
>> reserved for an as-yet-unspecified proprietary link-layer type, as requested
>> by Will Barker" - I think he asked for it as some internal type, similar to
>> IBM's request for LINKTYPE_IBM_SP, which was assigned 145 and is described
>> as "Reserved for IBM SP switch", and LINKTYPE_IBM_SN, which was assigned
>> 146, and it described as "Reserved for IBM Next Federation switch".
>
> We are currently not at a point that we are running short on allocating
> values. My suggestion would be that we mark these values as “do not use” and
> move on to avoid conflicts. We can revisit their use if/when we are running
> out of values.
Sounds good.
In the 0-32767 range, we have a bit more than 32000 values. If we assign one
value per day, which we probably won't, we'll run out in about 87 years. I, at
least, am unlikely, barring some major medical advancements, unlikely to be
around to worry about that case. :-)
How does
> Values from 0 to 32767 are allocated following a First-Come First-Served
> policy (Section 4.4 of [RFC8126]). Values in the ranges 0-10, 50-51, and
> 98-301 are already assigned; values in the ranges 11-49 and 52-97 MUST not be
> assigned.
sound?_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
