Jorge,
Sorry about the delay getting back to you; hopefully we can bring this
document to WGLC relatively sonn.
Although I was still leaning towards a registry per tunnel-type or at
least per SAFI (since it would save the use of a new EC) I think at this
moment it is even more important to close on this as soon as possible to
avoid issues.
Slide 6 of the presentation I gave at the Dallas IETF provides some
reasons for not setting up a different registry per tunnel-type or SAFI.
My only other comment is that it would seem 'cleaner' to use the most
significant bit to indicate the existence of the EC instead of bit 1. If
would be good to confirm that the rumor about the use of bit 0 is an
existing implementation, in which case I agree it can’t be used.
I did hear the "rumor" from a reliable source ;-)
If that
is the case, it would be good if the relevant people document that
somewhere.
Indeed it would. But hopefully, once we set up the registry, similar
undocumented uses of the flag bits will be less likely to happen.
Eric
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
