Subject: Re: WG Last Call on IANA Considerations (was Re: [Idr] IDR WG Minutes)

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:37:44 -0400

Yakov had requested that I forward my proposed wording changes to
the list.  Here they are:

: > Are you ok with the proposed text I sent to the list yesterday ?
: > If not, could you propose and post an alternative text.
: 
: Presuming you're talking about the last call, here's how I'd change it:
: 
:   - Keep 1-63 as "IETF Consensus/Early Allocation"
:   - Reclassify 64-223 as "FCFS"
:     Make special that 128 will remain allocated
:   - Reclassify 224-239 as "Reserved".
:   - Retain 240-254 as "private use".
:   - Reclassify 255 as "Reserved"
:   - As needed, register values in the Reserved or FCFS range if
:     previously-deployed protocols come into or are already in
:     progress within the IETF.
:   - Recommend that new developments use FCFS or RFC4020 method to get
:     code points
:   - In the future, if we run out of FCFS or IETF Consensus numbers,
:     start using the "Reserved" space as needed.
: 
: The modified IANA Consideration section will look as follows:
: 
:    As specified in this document, the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI
:    attributes contain the Subsequence Address Family Identifier (SAFI)
:    field. The SAFI name space is defined in this document. The IANA will
:    maintain and register values for the SAFI namespace as follows. 
:    
:    SAFI values 1 and 2 are assigned in this document.  SAFI values
:    4 through 63, 65, and 128 are to be assigned by IANA using either
:    the "IETF Consensus" policy defined in RFC2434 or the "Early
:    IANA Allocation" policy defined in RFC4020. SAFI values 64 and
:    66 through 239 are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First  Come
:    First Served" policy defined in RFC2434. SAFI values 240 through
:    254 are for "private use", and are not to be assigned by IANA.
:    SAFI values 0, 3, and 129 through 239 and 255 are reserved.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:06:08 -0700

Jeff,

[speaking as a WG member...]

> :    SAFI values 0, 3, and 129 through 239 and 255 are reserved.

What is the rationale for having one range for the IETF Consensus
policy and another range for the FCFS policy ?  In other words, why
not have just a single block from which IANA could allocate
either based on the IETF Consensus or on the FCFS policy ?

Yakov.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:30:36 -0400

Yakov,

> either based on the IETF Consensus or on the FCFS policy ?

Just for list reference, we haven't really changed the classes of
allocations we'd be allowing.  We're tweaking the ranges.

As to why we'd want those particular classes, here's my opinion:

We want a range that says, "Here's what IETF wants".  It implies 
organizational "support" for a given mechanism.  This is the IETF
Consensus range.

We want a range that says, "If you want to do something that uses
this mechanism but don't want to get full 'IETF buy-in'", there's
another range.  This is the FCFS range.

We want a range for private experimentation.  This range has a strong
implication that "do what you want here, it probably wont work with
someone else".  This is the private range.  

I think your question is why have blocks at all?  IMO, we want to 
set aside space so that IETF has room to grow in the (unlikely) case
that FCFS gets exhausted too quickly.  It's a shared playground and
there's a limited number of marbles to give away.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies