Hi Robert,
From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 4:26 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Jeff Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
Acee,
Also isn't MD5 / TCP-AO or security certificates common across multiple routing
components ?
Videre RFC 8177…
I was under assumption that this work aims at providing a comprehensive
reference to common (used across protocols) elements either by defining them
directly or providing references if they were already defined elsewhere.
Apparently the latter part is missing from this document.
You have IPX address family and you do not have RIP one which was way more
common over PE-CE then IPX :) ?
RIP is not an address family, RIPv2 advertises AFs IPv4 and IPv6 (at least that
is all I’ve ever implemented)….
Oh please ... It seemed obvious especially in this context. It is like mocking
from someone who said "BGP" in the context of multi-protocol extensions rather
then spelling BGPv4 each time.
Sorry – I thought it was clear that these definitions in
iana-routing-types.yang corresponding directly to the IANA registries for
Address Families and Subsequent Address Families. IPX is an IANA registered AF.
See Normative references in the draft:
[IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-REGISTRY]
"IANA Address Family Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/
address-family-numbers.xhtml#address-family-numbers-2>.
[IANA-SAFI-REGISTRY]
"IANA Subsequent Address Family Identities (SAFI)
Parameters Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
safi-namespace/safi-namespace.xhtml#safi-namespace-2>.
Thanks,
Acee
Thx,
R.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
