Subject: Re: [Rift] RIFT UDP Ports/Multicast Address Allocations (WAS: AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 2a))

From: Antoni Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 19:19:59 +0000

Yes, good catch. Don’t remember I’ve seen this comment

Needs IANA addition if there isn’t one and chair request pls

  *   Tony

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:52
To: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, Jordan Head <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: RIFT UDP Ports/Multicast Address Allocations (WAS: AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 2a))
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

On September 13, 2022 at 8:34:50 AM, Jordan Head wrote:

[Changing the Subject so that the Chairs explicitly see this.]

Still hoping the Chairs/Shepherd look at this:

> For the Chairs/Shepherd:
>
> > > - §8.1 includes a set of suggested UDP ports, but they are not reflected
> > > in the registry. Early allocation has not been requested -- you should
> > > consider doing so. See rfc7120.
>
> The same comment applies to the multicast addresses.
>
> jhead>> Ack.

As it stands now, the implementations are using unassigned values.
While they seem to still be unsigned, that can’t last forever.  Please
request early allocation.

Alvaro.

Juniper Business Use Only