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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

John,

Since you, Keyur and Jeff have all thought about the question and are not
concerned,
I see no need for any change.

My concern was more conservationist and that it had been considered.

Alia


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:40 AM, John G. Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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