Hi Amanda, Jeff,
On 15/12/17 02:34 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Hi Amanda,
Please note, in the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd regretfully, the
authors have requested an allocation from OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs
while it should have been from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry.
Updated draft has been published (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-08) and
email to update the allocation (value of 6 from OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
Sub-TLVs registry) has been sent to iana-issues-comm...@iana.org (so 6 is
unavailable)
Back to draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload OSPFv3 allocations- it is quite
complicated and requires resolution.
I believe, the registry in question would be “OSPFv3 Extend-LSA Sub-TLV”,
please note - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions has already
suggested values 3(used already by the base draft for route-tag) to 14 for
their use.
right, the correct registry should be OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV.
Unfortunately, this registry has not yet been created as it comes from
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend, which has not yet been published as RFC.
Now, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions have origially
defined values 3-14 out of "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV" registry, but
only values 3 to 6 would be needed. We should make early IANA allocation
for these values (3,4,5,6) immediately as the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
sub-TLV" becomes available - the reason is that there are implementation
of OSPFv3 SR out there.
Then draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload can take the next value, e.g. 7 from
"OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLV" registry.
thanks,
Peter
Hopefully I haven’t caused even more confusion than before, we just need to
sort out who is getting what ;-)
Many thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Amanda Baber via RT
<iana-prot-param-comm...@iana.org>
Reply-To: <iana-prot-param-comm...@iana.org>
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 16:55
Cc: <mnand...@ebay.com>, <luay.ja...@verizon.com>, <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
Hi all,
As Peter pointed out, there appear to be issues with these registrations.
Is the first registry, "OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry," meant to refer to "OSPFv2
Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs" or "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs"? In the first of those,
values 4, 5, and 11 are available. In the second, values 4 and 5 are not available. Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters
For the second registry in the document, if "OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry" refers
to "OSPFv3 Router LSA Link Types," value 4 is not available. Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters
For the third registry in the document, if "BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry" refers to
"BGP-LS NLRI-Types," value 1101 is available, but because this is a Specification
Required registry, we'll have to ask the designated experts to confirm that this is OK. Can you
confirm that this is the correct registry?
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters
You can see a list of registries here:
https://www.iana.org/protocols
thanks,
Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
On Thu Dec 14 08:52:23 2017, ppse...@cisco.com wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
