From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> Sent: 24 June 2024 08:55
Hi Tom, We are trying to align range of 128-255 for user-defined metrics with range already allocated in IGP: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con-12.html#name-igp-metric-type-registry So we can do 1:1 mapping between both ranges. If we would like to keep value "255" reserved, then I can think of 3 possible solutions: a) Reserve it in LSR draft as well <tp> Of the three options, that is the one that appeals to me but I see Dhruv's response calling for a more general solution, at least within PCE, so I suspect that that is what will be pursued. Tom Petch b) Allocate range of same size in PCEP, but shift values by some specific value (e.g. 128-255 in IGP -> 127-254 in PCEP), but I'm definitely not fan of this solution as I assume that it would be source of problems in the future c) Explicitly allocate some experimental/vendor specific range of metric types (e.g. 120-127 to keep mapping simple) Regards, Samuel -----Original Message----- From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 1:26 PM From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 22 June 2024 09:41 Hi WG, We have received a request from the authors of draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo for an early code point allocation for the codepoints listed in - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-10.html#table-7 These are the codepoints for the latest changes made to align with draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-bw-con as per - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/U2AIec7Vk9LomZM-LlvhxGywQgA/ The chairs would like to know if there are any objections to adding these new metric types and keeping a range aside for user defined metrics. <tp> Looking at what I think is the right table, I see that the value zero is reserved which I always think is a good start. But this request allows the value of 255 as part of the range which I always think a bad idea. I think that this, the maximum value, should be reserved e.g. lest the range is fully assigned and a value is needed to act as an escape. For such purposes, I think one value is enough so I think that the range should end at 254 nd tnot 255 Tom Petch Further, RFC 7120 requires one to meet the following criteria to proceed: b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described in an Internet-Draft. c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria or believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs hear no objections by Monday, July 8th, we will kick off the early allocation request. Note that there was an earlier allocation request where some codepoints were already allocated by IANA - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8jv4slxI_K3p4qqUPRlAjSgScOA/ Thanks! Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
