Got it, thanks.
Jukka
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jari Arkko wrote:
Jukka,
Both registries will use 32 values for the aggregation levels. For IPv6
RAO, value 3 is removed but value 35 is kept. Thus, IPv6 will have values
4-35 (=32 values) for the 32 levels.
OK
We can make this more clear, yet, I already answered a question from IANA
about this a couple of weeks ago, so they are aware of how the registry
should be changed.
Which is good, but I was hoping the RFC itself would also be clear on this.
How about this:
OLD:
| 3 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 3 | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
NEW:
| 3 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 3 | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175](*) |
| | [RFC3175] | |
OLD:
Note (*): The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 35
(Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level 32) has been marked due to an
inconsistency in the text of [RFC3175], and that is consequently
reflected in the IANA registry. In that document the values 3-35
(i.e. 33 values) are defined for nesting levels 0-31 (i.e. 32
levels).
It is unclear why nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
[RFC3175]).
NEW:
Note (*): The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 35
(Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level 32) has been marked due to an
inconsistency in the text of [RFC3175], and that is consequently
reflected in the IANA registry. In that document the values 3-35
(i.e. 33 values) are defined for nesting levels 0-31 (i.e. 32
levels). Similarly, value 3 is duplicate, because aggregation
level 0 means end-to-end signaling, and this already has an IPv6
RAO value "1" assigned.
Also note that nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
[RFC3175]).
Section 3.2 of this document redefines these so that for IPv6,
value 3 is no longer used and values 4-35 represent levels
1-32. This removes the above inconsistencies.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf