Subject: [lisp] IANA LCAF registry

From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:29:32 -0800

Hi all,

I was looking into the procedures to request a LCAF type and realized that
there seems to be two LCAF registries on IANA: 'LISP Address Type' [1] and
'LISP LCAF Type' [2]. One is defined by RFC6830 [3] and the other by
draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf [4]. The problem is that they define different
allocation mechanisms (FCFS vs specification required) for the second half
of the LCAF space (128-255). Why do we keep two and which one is the
authoritative registry? My guess is that 'LISP Address Type' should be
overridden by 'LISP LCAF Type' but wanted to check with the WG. Sorry if
this has been pointed out before and I missed the discussion.

Alberto

[1]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-address-type-codes-registry
[2]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-parameters.xhtml#lisp-lcaf-type
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6830#section-14.2
[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22#section-7

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:02:57 -0800

> I was looking into the procedures to request a LCAF type and realized that there seems to be two LCAF registries on IANA: 'LISP Address Type' [1] and 'LISP LCAF Type' [2]. One is defined by RFC6830 [3] and the other by draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf [4]. The problem is that they define different allocation mechanisms (FCFS vs specification required) for the second half of the LCAF space (128-255). Why do we keep two and which one is the authoritative registry? My guess is that 'LISP Address Type' should be overridden by 'LISP LCAF Type' but wanted to check with the WG. Sorry if this has been pointed out before and I missed the discussion.

Well it really is FCFS after a specification has been written. There is really is only one registry. They just were called different names. We can fix this in RFC6830bis/RFC6833bis.

And when we do that update these bis RFCs we can point them to RFC8060 (the LCAF to be RFC soon).

Dino

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:25:04 +0100

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:02:57PM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> > I was looking into the procedures to request a LCAF type and
> > realized that there seems to be two LCAF registries on IANA: 'LISP
> > Address Type' [1] and 'LISP LCAF Type' [2]. One is defined by
> > RFC6830 [3] and the other by draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf [4]. The problem
> > is that they define different allocation mechanisms (FCFS vs
> > specification required) for the second half of the LCAF space
> > (128-255). Why do we keep two and which one is the authoritative
> > registry? My guess is that 'LISP Address Type' should be overridden
> > by 'LISP LCAF Type' but wanted to check with the WG. Sorry if this
> > has been pointed out before and I missed the discussion.
> 
> Well it really is FCFS after a specification has been written. There
> is really is only one registry. They just were called different names.
> We can fix this in RFC6830bis/RFC6833bis.
> 

"RFC to be"?  It was published 30 minutes ago! :-)
    
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.txt

Congratulations Dino, thank you for your perseverance in driving this
documenting through the process.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:29:55 -0800

>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8060.txt

Cool, congrats.

> documenting through the process.

Congrats to the working group and all the good use-cases that have come out and will come out.

Dino

---

From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:53:59 -0800

Couldn't ask for a better time to ask the question :). Congrats to Dino,
Job, Dave and the rest of the WG for the achievement.

Thanks Dino for the reply. And yes, let's make sure that we fix this for
RFC6830bis/RFC6833bis.

Alberto