IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: registering tunnel types

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 29 October 2018 10:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C281130E63 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 03:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HvQlZ-oGkD1p for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 03:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E7212D4E6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 03:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42kB5q0TV1z2yFp; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:43:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.69]) by opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42kB5p6n6NzCqkp; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:43:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::bc1c:ad2f:eda3:8c3d%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:43:26 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: registering tunnel types
Thread-Topic: registering tunnel types
Thread-Index: AQHUa7JQGt84fGh/gUCjkcGLMGYnDaU2EPHQ
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:43:26 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E039DFF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <01a901d46bb2$26c23700$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01a901d46bb2$26c23700$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gKZxW7cty76TdGvittoC3BDH5x8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:43:30 -0000

Hi Tom, all,

In order to provide a full context, below some precisions: 

* draft-ietf-softwire-yang DOES NOT create a new registry for maintaining tunnel types nor changes the procedure to assign new code points.  Such register does already exist: https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6. 
* draft-ietf-softwire-yang creates a YANG module which **maintained by IANA**; that is, upon assignment of a new code by IANA, the module is updated automatically by IANA. 
* draft-ietf-softwire-yang augments the interface YANG module with aplusp specific nodes. To do so, it requires the tunnel type to be set to aplusp. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de tom petch
> Envoyé : mercredi 24 octobre 2018 17:58
> À : Ole Troan
> Cc : 6man WG
> Objet : registering tunnel types
> 
> draft-ietf-softwire-yang
> completed IETF Last Call two weeks ago and, since then, has acquired a
> YANG module that defines tunnel types, as listed below.  It is intended
> to be a IANA-maintained module and so changes to the list of tunnels
> will not require a reissue of the softwires RFC-to-be.  At the same
> time, getting it right first time never did any harm so if anyone can
> think of any missing, or can think of other places where there might be
> other tunnels lurking, now would be a good time to mention it.
> 
> It is based on RFC4087 Tunnel MIB (which created an SMI Textual
> Convention that went up to Teredo) so tunnels from that vintage are
> likely well catered for.  softwires is not where I would have first
> looked for tunnel types, but it has a certain logic to it.
> 
>      identity  other
> 
>      identity direct
> 
>      identity gre
> 
>      identity minimal
> 
>      identity l2tp
> 
>      identity pptp
> 
>      identity l2f
> 
>      identity udp
> 
>      identity atmp
> 
>      identity msdp
> 
>      identity sixtofour
> 
>      identity sixoverfour
> 
>      identity isatap
> 
>      identity teredo
> 
>      identity iphttps
> 
>      identity softwiremesh
> 
>      identity dslite
> 
>      identity  aplusp
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email