hi job
thanks for reading and commenting!
> * 32-bit ASNs don't fit in 16-bit fields. Consider using a set of
> Extended Communities?
next you're gonna want ipv6; sheesh! :)
i think the draft tried to finesse and not get into wire format. but it
probably should.
extended or wide?
> * The Local Administrator values {64994,64995,64996} might already
> be in use and carry local significance.
point taken. with the alternate 10/10 hack, that would be ok. with the
per-path model, a definite problem.
> * I wouldn't avoid setting up an IANA registry merely because there are
> 'very few categories'
point. can we have a "can not be added to" registry to inhibit the
complicators a la 4384? </snark>
> * Section 5's 'well-known prefix' perhaps should be set to TBD, rather
> than using widely used RFC 1918 space.
i am not so sure. i would not want to burn precious address space for
this. and we want something not routable, yes? but, yes, being a bit
more formal about the choice would be good. discuss ...
the alternate hack would also need an ipv6 well-known prefix for the
collector peers which are v6 only in 2050 </snark>.
again, thanks for review. much appreciated.
and good luck weathering the storm.
randy
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
