RE: draft-ietf-isis-traffic

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

> >>            250-254   Reserved for cisco specific extensions
> 
> > Excuse me?
> 
> I will ask the authors to check with Cisco if they are
> using this region at all, as I mentioned on the call.
> 
No matter what, if cisco needs this type of stuff, then one would
do somethink aka:

       200-255  - reserved for vendor extensions

And then (outside the document) cisco could be assigned values 250-254
or so. So in other words, it is not appropriate to put in a WG document
that some values are reserved for a particular vendor. Can Lucent have
a reservation for 5 as well? Alcatel? Juniper, Nortel, .... etc...
And I mean can they have them reserved in the document, just as cisco 
has them reserved now.

This of course ignores the "vendor extensions" discussion we've recently 
had, and that may in fact not be applicable to this name space.

Bert
> 
> Alex
> 
>