IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 16 December 2017 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D094A126CF6 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:11:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 thNnWyuz9oDX for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF84A12422F for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:11:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4304; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513447871; x=1514657471; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hCVhrV1zpVTm5DyKdrQUfclZy+8dZT97olUUqwqbf5Q=; b=VbcS1pr3qq10LUvnVXsP/ccqeIQ7LTR7Jm6RC9bcv1ZpfGKlAE4ctWgj 9OEhe5WWLbsHTET3oEOZoOMA49XBDD7AEbAxCiyBijtvNNQPAVl7Ajqy/ rduHbqL0EhrfCy05H9JzCGsHvYOXYegY5ik4k7g7NCvJ35O4xttLFL3fY Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C+AACxYDVa/4kNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM+ZnQnB4N/iiGPB4IAlyGCFQoYC4UYAhqEZj8YAQEBAQEBAQEBax0LhSQBAQEDAQEhEToLEAIBCBgCAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQOBYoqEKddgieKZQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGQWBD4Jfgg6DP4MsgUmBZQEBgW0Xgn6CYwWSG5EhAod9jS2CFoYTi0qNG4kwAhEZAYE6AR85gU9vFTyCKYJfKYFOeIlOgRUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,411,1508803200"; d="scan'208";a="331360700"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Dec 2017 18:11:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBGIBA1G005588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:11:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:11:09 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:11:09 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org" <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>
CC: "adrian@olddog.co.com" <adrian@olddog.co.com>, "mnanduri@ebay.com" <mnanduri@ebay.com>, "luay.jalil@verizon.com" <luay.jalil@verizon.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
Thread-Index: AQHTdHQRIguhjQmtOke8EJ3PPxRuDKNEyTOCgAGAVYA=
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:11:09 +0000
Message-ID: <D65ACAD8.E280D%acee@cisco.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-992646@icann.org> <151319505743.30097.13501863117618500315.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D6573193.E1585%acee@cisco.com> <5A323BC6.80209@cisco.com> <rt-4.2.9-7308-1513365307-552.992646-9-0@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.2.9-7308-1513365307-552.992646-9-0@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <52F819B8AD86394FB5730662D2FF5D3E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Wh09C1sNhe-7ZxJkfdnRZPG_vDA>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [IANA #992646] FW: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:11:14 -0000

Hi Amanda, 

Right - assignments for the Remote IPv4 address Sub-TLV, Local/Remote
Interface ID Sub-TLV, and Link-Overload Sub-TLV should be taken from the
unassigned values (7-32767). The values in the draft were suggested since
they were unassigned when the draft was first authored. However, to the
best of my knowledge, there are no implementations using these values.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 12/15/17, 2:15 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Amanda Baber via RT"
<ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org>
wrote:

>Hi Acee, Peter,
>
>Acee replied: 
>
>> >Is the first registry, "OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry," meant to
>>refer
>> >to  "OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs" or "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
>> >Sub-TLVs"? In the first of those, values 4, 5, and 11 are available. In
>> >the second, values 4 and 5 are not available. Please see
>> >
>> >https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters
>> 
>> Sounds good to me.
>
>Are we making the assignments in OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry, which
>does have the values available? It looks like Peter wrote below that
>these should instead be allocated from the second option, the OSPFv2
>Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry, where values 4 and 5 have already
>been assigned.
>
>thanks,
>Amanda
>
>On Thu Dec 14 08:52:23 2017, ppsenak@cisco.com wrote:
>> Hi Acee,
>> 
>> On 14/12/17 01:39 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> > Please provide allocations for the code points in
>> > draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10.txt:
>> >
>> >   OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry
>> 
>> more precisely, these should be allocated from "OSPFv2 Extended Link
>>TLV 
>> Sub-TLVs" registry. The text in the draft should be updated as well to
>> reflect the correct registry name. At this point it says "OSPF Extended
>> Link TLVs Registry", which would suggest it is from a different, top
>> level TLV registry.
>> 
>> Also I see that value 5 has been taken by RFC8169 already.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>> 
>> >
>> >     i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - Suggested value 5
>> >
>> >     ii) Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV - Suggested value 4
>> >
>> >     iii) Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV - Suggested Value 11
>> >
>> >     OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry
>> >
>> >     i) Link-Overload sub-TLV - suggested value 4
>> >
>> >     BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752]
>> >
>> > i)Link-Overload TLV - Suggested 1101
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Acee
>> >
>> > On 12/13/17, 2:57 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Acee Lindem has requested publication of
>>draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
>> >> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the OSPF working group.
>> >>
>> >> Please verify the document's state at
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OSPF mailing list
>> > OSPF@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> > .
>> >
>> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email