Hi Acee,
On 14/12/17 01:39 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Please provide allocations for the code points in
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt:
OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry
more precisely, these should be allocated from "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
Sub-TLVs" registry. The text in the draft should be updated as well to
reflect the correct registry name. At this point it says "OSPF Extended
Link TLVs Registry", which would suggest it is from a different, top
level TLV registry.
Also I see that value 5 has been taken by RFC8169 already.
thanks,
Peter
i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5
ii) Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV - Suggested value 4
iii) Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV - Suggested Value 11
OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry
i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - suggested value 4
BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752]
i)Link-Overload TLV - Suggested 1101
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/13/17, 2:57 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
Acee Lindem has requested publication of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
as Proposed Standard on behalf of the OSPF working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
