Re: GRE specification going to last call

[Dave Thaler <dthaler@dthaler.microsoft.com>]

Tim writes:
> There don't seem to be implications, as far as I can see, for the UDLR 
> spec; apart from protocol types.
> 
> This was quite loosely defined in 1701:
>   "In general... additional values may be defined in other documents."
> but gre-update-02 is rather stricter:
>   "These protocol types are defined in [RFC1700]... and in [ETYPES]."
> 
> This may limit some scope for UDLR implementations which want to use GRE, 
> but use a MAC type which doesn't have a number, e.g. ETSI MPE, which I 
> believe Patrick brought up as an issue some time ago. This doesn't really 
> affect UDLR itself though.
> 
> Just as a note to those concerned, the new draft also says "IANA SHOULD NOT 
> encourage the assignment of additional ETHER TYPES (GRE Protocol Types) for 
> use with GRE."

The MSDP WG has the same problem.  We've recently asked IANA for a GRE 
Protocol Type value for MSDP.

-Dave