Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on IANA Considerations for 2858bis

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:49:19 -0700

Folks,

So far we have two proposals for the IANA Consideration Section
on the table:

1. 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 127 are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First  Come
   First Served" policy defined in RFC2434. SAFI values 240 through
   255 are for "private use", and are not to be assigned by IANA.
   SAFI values 0, 3, and 129 through 239 are reserved.

2.  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.

The difference between the two is the size of the range for FCFS 
and for Reserved. 

Please indicate your preference wrt these two alternatives (or if you
have yet another alternative please post it to the list) as soon
as possible, as the deadline for comments is Aug 22.

Yakov.

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

---

From: Pedro Roque Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:14:28 -0700

> as possible, as the deadline for comments is Aug 22.

Yakov,

This is the SAFI values that i believe are currently in use:
1, 2     (unicast, multicast)
4        (label-unicast)
64       (tunnel)                             [iana assigned]
65       (vpls)                               [iana assigned]
66       (mdt)                                [iana assigned]
128, 129 (2547 ucast, mcast)
129      (vr-based autodiscovery)
132      (rt-constrain)
133, 134 (flow-spec)
140      (l2 auto discovery ?)

I'd like to see:
[64-127] Iana FCFS
[128 - 160] reserved + current usage documented.
[160 - 254] reserved to be released in future for iana.

  Pedro.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:26:50 -0700

Pedro,

> [160 - 254] reserved to be released in future for iana.

If in fact there are no used SAFI above 140, then how about
changing IANA FCFS to [64-140] (as to cover all the known
used SAFI), and changing reserved to [141-254].

Yakov.

---

From: Pedro Roque Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:47:35 -0700

> used SAFI), and changing reserved to [141-254].

I'm concerned w/ the space between 128 - 140. There are allocations
there that are in use that i'd like to make sure IANA doesn't try to
allocate over. I'd like to see that clarified.

I think we are in rough agreement on the following:

  Have IANA manage [64 - 128] (including current allocations 64, 65,
66).

  Leave unused space as reserved [141 - 254]. Can be allocated in future
to IANA, depends on future experience.

As far as the space [128 - 140],
  I'd like to mark it as "space not managed by iana", given the presence
of current allocations. In my previous e-mail i didn't include 130 and
131 but i believe these where in use at some point (or at least
documented).

  Pedro.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:52:23 -0700

Pedro,

> 131 but i believe these where in use at some point (or at least

Would it be sufficient if IANA documents these (current) allocations, 
and then manages the rest of [128-140] on FCFS basis ?

Yakov.

---

From: Pedro Roque Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:02:56 -0700

> and then manages the rest of [128-140] on FCFS basis ?

No objection from my part. Is IANA ok with this ?

  Pedro.

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:31:25 -0400

>No objection from my part. Is IANA ok with this ?

In my conversations with IANA, I believe they would be amenable to
this - we say that 128-140 is FCFS but document the existing
allocations (after all, if it's FCFS you can just get a number
by asking).  We can even mark the others you mention such as
130 and 131 as reserved by IANA, to put off problems with
collisions with undeployed stuff that uses them.

What about the apparent 129 conflict in your list?

  Bill