RE: Where to define IANAtunnelType TC

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Dave responds to me:
> 
> This question was discussed last year on this list and on the IF-MIB
> list (which created the IANAifType-MIB in the first place).
> 
> See http://ops.ietf.org/lists/mreview/mreview.2003/msg00632.html
> which is the approach which is now taken by the tunnel mib.
> 
Thanks for the ptr. I guess I should have gone digging. But I did
not recall that a discussion did take place... despite of the 
following:

> (Bert, you were on this thread too:
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/mreview/mreview.2003/msg00631.html)
> 

Gee... am I getting old.. loosing my memory... both... more ??

> I can't remember who all commented on the if-mib list (the mailing
> list archive seems to be down at the moment).
> 
Sofar I have seen (in that old discussion) feedback from Mike and
Juergen and from Pekka (worring about proper rules for assignment).

Now I also see a reaction from Dan.

Any other MIB Doctor opinions?

Bert
> -Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 4:57 AM
> > To: Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: Where to define IANAtunnelType TC
> > 
> > Dave Thaler has proposed (and IETF Last Call did not generate
> > comment or objections) to put it in the IANAifType-MIB as
> > documented in draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib-02.txt.
> > 
> > I do not want to just have the discussion between Dave Thaler and
> > myself, so I would appreciate if some MIB doctors can chime in.
> > 
> > Here is my original questions to Dave (prefixed with > ) and
> > my follow up questions when I saw no changes in the document that
> > went through IETF Last Call
> > 
> > > - Is it wise to put IANAtunnelType TC in IANAifType-MIB?
> > >   Or would a different module be better.
> > 
> > I see no change, neither do I see an answer as to why this belongs
> > in IANAifType-MIB
> > 
> > >   In any event, the DESCRIPTION clause of that TC should explain
> > >   the rules for IANA on when/how to assign new values.
> > 
> > I see no text for that yet, do I?
> > 
> > >   It also seems to me that we may want to update the DESCRIPTION
> > >   clause of the ianaIfType TC to say something about tunnels and
> > >   that they better have tunnel(131) as ifType and a listing
> > >   in the new TC.
> > >
> > I see no proposed text for that either.
> > 
> > I also would like MIB doctors to comment on these IANA 
> considerations
> > which are in Dave's I-D:
> > 
> > The policy for assigning new IANAtunnelType values is First Come
> > First Served, as defined in [RFC2434], just as it is for new
> > IANAifTypes values.  The assignment policy for IANAtunnelType
> > values should always be identical to the policy for assigning
> > IANAifType values.
> > 
> > New types of tunnels over IPv4 or IPv6 should not be assigned
> > IANAifType values.  Instead, they should be assigned
> > IANAtunnelType values and hence reuse the interface type
> > tunnel(131).  (Note this restriction does not apply to "tunnels"
> > which are not over IPv4 or IPv6.)
> > 
> > Previously tunnel types which were not point-to-point tunnels were
> > problematic in that they could not be properly expressed in the
> > tunnel MIB, and hence were assigned IANAifType values.  This
> > document now corrects this problem, and as a result, IANA should
> > deprecate the sixToFour(215) IANAifType value in favor of the
> > sixToFour(11) IANAtunnelType value.
> > 
> > Bert
>