> On Jun 10, 2025, at 2:01 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
Works for me. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
