Ben, Perhaps, although AFAIK the three values defined in RFC 4364 have not been supplemented since it was published in 2006.
Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 9:49 AM > To: John E Drake <[email protected]> > Cc: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>; 'The IESG' <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; bess- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on > draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control- > plane-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi John, > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:43:34PM +0000, John E Drake wrote: > > Ben, > > > > An RD is encoded using the same format as an extended community but it isn't > an extended community. Rather, it is actually part of the NLRI. The first > octet is > always zero whereas the first octet of an SFIR Pool Identifier extended > community will always be non-zero (TBD6). > > Thanks for helping clarify. I'm not seeing what guarantees that the first > octet of > the RD is always zero going forward, though -- I see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/route- > distinguisher-types/route-distinguisher-types.xhtml__;!!NEt6yMaO- > gk!XaVl3FGXv5cbCKTxNwk3iDLsewVmqJqBOHl8SCveaWdUk0BtkI2cbqt92LXsa5E > $ > that lists values 3-65534 as "Unassigned". If we are going to rely on > non-overlap > between the extended community types used for this document and RD types in > general, don't we need to mark some values in one (or both!) registry as > Reserved with a reference to [this-document]? > > -Ben _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
