Re: [Idr] AD review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

On May 22, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Keyur Patel (keyupate) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> b) I see that all 8 bits of the RESERVED field are being used for this
>> purpose.  Is there a reason to do so, given that only 3 values have a
>> planned use?   I know that there are existing implementations and I
>> don't have another plan for those values - just general conservation.
>> (Imagine wanting to do the same procedure but for a more limited scope
>> of routes.)
> 
> #Keyur: We have redefined the "Reserved" field to Message sub-type. 3 bits
> are used. Remaining are reserved for future use.

Actually per the IANA Considerations section values 128-254 are FCFS which is not very “reserved”. If we really want to accommodate this concern, the whole registry should be Standards Action, instead of just the bottom seven bits of it. Or I guess maybe we could make a small FCFS range in the bottom few bits, say values 3-7, and leave the rest as SA.

One hand, the registry change would be easy. Other hand, Jeff’s point is true too:

> If we got to the point where that was truly necessary, I suspect someone
> would just allocate a new message type and make a next-generation route
> refresh.  We're not exactly going through BGP message code points very
> quickly.

I’m not really too bothered either way.

—John