idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-11.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 28, 2021) is 1150 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 782 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 782 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-LSP-PING' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-MT' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-RC' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-RM' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-1-16-21' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-11' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-20' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-23' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-27' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-Sub-6' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-TLV-reg' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 14 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group L. Andersson 3 Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting 4 Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen 5 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies 6 Expires: September 1, 2021 C. Pignataro 7 Cisco Systems 8 T. Saad 9 Juniper Networks 10 February 28, 2021 12 Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters 13 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-11 15 Abstract 17 This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 which both define IANA 18 registries for MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping, in particular the 19 registration procedure "Private Use" (esarlier know as "Vendor 20 Private Use") is changed to "First Come, First Served" the TLV and 21 Sub-TLV Registries. 23 It also updates the description of the procedures for the responses 24 sent when an unknown or erroneous code point is found. The updates 25 are to clarify and align this namespace with recent developments, 26 e.g. the updates to " Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations 27 Section in RFCs" (e.g. RFC 8126), instead of the terminology from 28 the obsoleted RFC 5226. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2021. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1.2.1. Terminology Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 1.2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes 70 Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 3. Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 3.1. General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV 73 registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs . . . 7 75 3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 8 76 3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 3.3.1. Common Changes to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries . . 9 78 4. Updates to Related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 4.1. Updates to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 4.2. Updates to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 6.1. Updates to the Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes 84 Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 6.1.1. Updates to the Message Type registry . . . . . . . . 13 86 6.1.2. Updates to the Reply Modes registry . . . . . . . . . 14 87 6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes registry . . . . . . . . 16 88 6.2. Updates to the TLV and Sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . 18 89 6.2.1. Updates to the TLVs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 90 6.2.2. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 91 and 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 92 6.2.3. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 . . . 24 93 6.2.4. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 . . . 27 94 6.2.5. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 . . . 29 95 6.2.6. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 . . . 31 96 6.2.7. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 . . . 33 97 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 98 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 99 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 100 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 101 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 103 1. Introduction 105 There were a number of reasons to start the work that has led to this 106 document, e.g.: 108 o When the LSP Ping registry was created it was incorrectly assumed 109 that code points allocated by Experimental RFCs would be 110 'experimental' code points; a code point made available in a 111 public IANA registry is not limited by the type of RFC that made 112 the allocation but is available for any document. 114 o The number of 'experimental' code points was also too large, as 115 compared to what is normally allocated for "Experimental Use". 117 o RFC 8029 uses the words "mandatory" and "optional" differently to 118 how other RFC do. RFC 8029 for example talks about mandatory TLVs 119 to indicate that it is mandatory to take a certain action if the 120 TLV is found in a message but not recognized, other RFCs uses 121 "mandatory TLV" to indicate a TLV that must be present in a 122 message. 124 Over time there have been attempts to administratively update some of 125 the registries, but it was soon decided that an RFC was needed. 126 Other, often minor, potential updates were found, e.g. reserving the 127 value 0 (zero) in registries where that is possible. 129 When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the 130 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 131 Ping Parameters" IANA namespace [IANA-LSP-PING]. 133 RFC 8611 [RFC8611] created LSP Ping IANA registries that match RFC 134 8126. This document further clarifies the entries in those 135 registries and makes the definitions more precise. 137 This document updates RFC 8029 [RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by 138 updating two groups of registries as follows: 140 First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes 141 [IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] are updated. The changes to 142 these registries are minor. 144 Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries. 146 o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg]. 148 o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]. 150 o Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 [IANA-Sub-6]. 152 o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11]. 154 o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20]. 156 o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23]. 158 o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27]. 160 It should be noted that RFC 8029 was published before RFC 8126 and 161 uses old terminology for some registration procedures, e.g., "Vendor 162 Private Use". RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses newer 163 terminology, e.g., "Private Use". Both "Vendor Private Use" and 164 "Private Use" has been removed and replaced with "First come, first 165 served (FCFS) code points. 167 One reason to change from code point allocated by Vendor Private Use 168 or Private Use is that such code points are allowed in production 169 networks. Theoretically, it is possible that two vendors might use 170 the same code point value with different meanings. If such code is 171 ever deployed in the same network this could cause protocol issues 172 that would be hard to debug. 174 With FCFS code points this will not happen. Vendors that have 175 existing code using Vendor Private Use or Private Use code points 176 should register those code points as FSFC code points soon as this 177 document is published as an RFC. 179 The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated. 181 Third, according to RFC 8029 some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are 182 called "mandatory" or "optional". Contrary to how other RFCs use 183 these words, indicating that it is mandatory or optional to include 184 the code points in a message, RFC 8029 uses these words to indicate 185 that an action might or might not be mandatory. This document 186 updates RFC 8029 to drop the words "mandatory" and "optional", and 187 the text is changed to focus on what should be done. 189 1.1. Requirement Language 191 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 192 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 193 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 194 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 195 capitals, as shown here. 197 1.2. Terminology 199 This section list terms that are used when discussing the hierarchy 200 of IANA registers (Section 1.2.1) and abbreviations used in IANA 201 registries update in this document (Section 1.2.2). 203 1.2.1. Terminology Used in this Document 205 This document uses some terms that relates to IANA registries in this 206 way: 208 IANA Name Space, 209 a namespace is a top level registry. An example could be 210 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 211 Ping Parameters" [IANA-LSP-PING]. A namespace is most often a 212 container for registries that hold code points that share some 213 affinity. 215 IANA Registry, 216 an IANA registry holds code points, and lists the registration 217 procedures and allocation these code points. One example would be 218 the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg]. 220 IANA Sub-registry, 221 a sub-registry is used when a code point, or a set of code points 222 allocated in a single registry, needs "sub-code points" scoped by 223 the code point or the set of code points. An example of a sub- 224 registry that holds code points for more than one TLV is 225 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] 227 1.2.2. Abbreviations 229 This section list abbreviations used in the unchanged part of the 230 registries updated by this document. These abbreviations were 231 originally expanded in the document defining the registries. They 232 are listed here following the requirement to expand any abbreviation 233 that is not well-known. All these abbreviations are from the 234 Return Codes registry [IANA-RC]. 236 BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 237 DDMAP - Downstream Detailed Mapping 239 FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class 241 OAM - Operation, Administration and Maintenance 243 PM - Performance Monitoring 245 RSC - Return Subcode 247 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries 249 The following changes are made to the Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply 250 Modes [IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] registries. 252 o In the listing of assigned code points the term "Vendor Private 253 Use" is changed to "Private Use". 255 o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to 256 "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed. 258 o A small set of code points (4 code points) for Experimental Use is 259 added by reducing the "RFC Required" range. 261 o The registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" 262 are added to the table of registration procedures. 264 o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration 265 procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use". 267 o In the lists that capture the assignment status, the fields that 268 are reserved, i.e., 0 (zero), Private Use and Experimental Use are 269 clearly marked as such. 271 * Note that in the Return Codes registry [IANA-RC] the code point 272 "0" has already been assigned. This assignment is not changed 273 and in this registry the code point "0" continues to be 274 assigned as "No Return Code". 276 The new Registration Procedures, the registry layouts and the new 277 assignments for these registries are found in Section 6.1. 279 3. Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries 280 3.1. General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV registries 282 The following principles apply to the processing of any TLV from any 283 of the LSP Ping TLVs and sub-TLVs IANA registries. 285 o All TLVs and sub-TLVs with a type in the range 0-32767 require a 286 response if they are not recognized. 288 o All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently 289 dropped, stepped over or an error message sent if they are not 290 recognized. 292 Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following 293 registration procedures: 295 o Standards Action. 297 o RFC Required. 299 o Experimental Use. 301 o First Come First Served (FCFS). 303 The exact definitions of these procedures are found in [RFC8126]. 305 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs 307 Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs in the Experimental Use, and FCFS 308 ranges are handled as any other unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV. 310 o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use 311 range (31740-31743) or from the FCFS range (31744-32767) a Return 312 Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") must be 313 sent in the echo response. 315 o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use 316 range (64508-64511) or from the FCFS range (64512-65535) the TLVs 317 may be silently ignored, stepped over or an error message sent. 319 The IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized 320 Experimental Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in 321 experimental or private networks; that is up to the agency running 322 the experimental or the private network. The statement above 323 describes how standards compliant implementations must treat the 324 unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs from these ranges. 326 3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs 328 This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV 329 and sub-TLV registries. 331 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 332 | Range | Registration | Note | 333 | | Procedures | | 334 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 335 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 336 | | | TLVs that require an error | 337 | | | message if not recognized. | 338 | | | [This document, section 3.1] | 339 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 340 | | | TLVs that require an error | 341 | | | message if not recognized. | 342 | | | [This document, section 3.1] | 343 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 344 | | | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 345 | | | TLVs that require an error | 346 | | | message if not recognized. | 347 | | | [This document, section 3.1] | 348 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 349 | | | TLVs that require an error | 350 | | | message if not recognized. | 351 | | | [This document, section 3.1] | 352 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 353 | | | TLVs that can be silently | 354 | | | dropped if not recognized. | 355 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 356 | | | TLVs that can be silently | 357 | | | dropped if not recognized. | 358 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 359 | | | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 360 | | | TLVs that can be silently | 361 | | | dropped if not recognized. | 362 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs and sub- | 363 | | | TLVs that can be silently | 364 | | | dropped if not recognized. | 365 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 367 Table 1: TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures 369 3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries 371 This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV 372 Registry. Section 6.2.1 to 6.2.7 describe how the new versions of 373 the IANA registries should look, together with the registration 374 procedures for each registry. 376 The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments 377 for these registries are used to model the changed MPLS LSP Ping 378 registries, see Section 6. 380 3.3.1. Common Changes to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries 382 The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries. 384 o The registration procedures "First Come First Served (FCFS)" and 385 "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration 386 procedures. 388 o Two small sets of code points (4 code points each) for 389 Experimental Use, are created. The first set is for the range 390 that requires a response if the TLV or sub-TLV is not recognized; 391 the second set is for the range where the TLV or sub-TLV that may 392 be silently dropped if not recognized. The code points for 393 experimental use are taken from the ranges previously (RFC 8029) 394 called 'Specification Required' and (RFC 8611) "RFC Required". 396 o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to 397 "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed. 399 o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is 400 changed to "First Come First Served (FCFS)". 402 o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is 403 added. 405 o A note saying "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration 406 procedures "Experimental Use". 408 o In the list that captures assignment status, the fields that are 409 reserved, i.e., 0 (zero) and Experimental Use are clearly marked. 411 4. Updates to Related RFCs 413 Some referenced RFCs use the concept "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory 414 sub-TLVs" to indicate that, if a TLV or sub-TLV of the range 0-32767 415 in a message is not understood, an error message needs to be sent in 416 response. 418 The same RFCs use "optional TLVs" and "optional sub-TLVs" to mean 419 TLVs or sub-TLVs that can be silently ignored if not recognized. 421 Since other RFCs use "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to 422 indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs that must be present in a message, we want 423 to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs 424 that require an error message in response if not understood. The 425 changes to the RFCs below align with this practice. 427 4.1. Updates to RFC 8029 429 Mandatory and optional are used to indicate whether a response is 430 needed if a TLV or sub-TLV is not understood on pages 15 and 16 in 431 Section 3 of RFC 8029. 433 The text in those two paragraphs is now updated to the following: 435 TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order 436 bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be 437 supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2 438 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the 439 echo response. 441 An implementation that does not understand or support a received 442 TLV or sub-TLV with Type greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., 443 with the high-order bit equal to 1) SHOULD ignore and step over 444 the TLV or sub-TLV, however an implementation MAY send an echo 445 response with Return Code 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not 446 understood") as it would have done if the high order bit had been 447 clear. 449 In Section 3.8 of RFC 8029 "mandatory" is used in the same way. The 450 first two paragraphs of this section are now updated to read as 451 follows: 453 The following TLV is a TLV that MAY be included in an echo reply 454 to inform the sender of an echo request that includes TLVs or sub- 455 TLVs Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 456 0) that are either not supported by the implementation or parsed 457 and found to be in error. 459 The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were 460 not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs. 462 4.2. Updates to RFC 8611 464 Section 13.4.1 of "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute 465 Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces 466 [RFC8611]" defines "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6]. 468 The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated to align with 469 changes defined in this document. 471 Section 13.4.1 of RFC 8611 is now updated as follows: 473 Section 13.4.1 Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 475 IANA has created a new sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" 476 [IANA-Sub-6] under the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] of the 477 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 478 Ping Parameters" namespace [lsp-ping-Namespace]. 480 The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" sub-registry is now updated to align 481 with changes defined in this document. 483 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 484 | Range | Registration | Note | 485 | | Procedures | | 486 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 487 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 488 | | | require an error message if not | 489 | | | recognized. [This document, | 490 | | | section 3.1] | 491 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 492 | | | require an error message if not | 493 | | | recognized. [This document, | 494 | | | section 3.1] | 495 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved not to be assigned. | 496 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 497 | | | require an error message if not | 498 | | | recognized. [This document, | 499 | | | section 3.1] | 500 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 501 | | | require an error message if not | 502 | | | recognized. [This document, | 503 | | | section 3.1] | 504 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 505 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 506 | | | recognized. | 507 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 508 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 509 | | | recognized. | 510 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved not to be assigned. | 511 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 512 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 513 | | | recognized. | 514 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 515 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 516 | | | recognized. | 517 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 519 Table 2: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures 521 5. Security Considerations 523 This document updates IANA registries. It also updates terminology 524 used to define, and clarifies the terminology related to, the code 525 points in the registries. The document does not change how the code- 526 points in the registries are used. This should not create any new 527 threats. 529 However, the updated terminology and the clarifications improve 530 security because it makes it more likely that implementations will be 531 consistent and harder to attack. 533 6. IANA Considerations 535 IANA is requested to update the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 536 Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace 537 [IANA-LSP-PING] as described in this document. 539 See Section 1.2.1 "Terminology Used in this Document" to see how 540 "namespace", "registry" and "sub-registry" are used in this document. 542 In other parts of this document the communality of the changes to the 543 LSP Ping registries has been the focus. For the IANA considerations 544 each changed registry has been described in its own right. 546 The following registries and sub-registries are changed: 548 "Message Types", [IANA-MT], 549 "Reply Modes", [IANA-RM] 550 "Return Codes" [IANA-RC] 551 "TLVs" [IANA-TLV-reg] 552 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] 553 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] 554 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11] 555 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20] 556 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23] 557 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27] 559 This document will be listed as an additional reference for each of 560 the registries described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. 562 6.1. Updates to the Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes 563 Registries 565 This section details the updated registration procedures and 566 allocations for "Message Type", "Reply Mode" and "Return Codes" 567 registries. 569 6.1.1. Updates to the Message Type registry 571 This is the changes to the "Message Type" registry specified in this 572 document: 574 o Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Reserved. 576 o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to 577 "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is 578 removed. 580 o Four code point have been taken from what was earlier 581 "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for 582 "Experimental Use." 584 The registration procedures after the changes for the "Message Type" 585 registry are shown in the table below: 587 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 588 | Range | Registration | Note | 589 | | Procedures | | 590 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 591 | 0-191 | Standards Action | | 592 | 192-247 | RFC Required | | 593 | 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 594 | 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 595 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 597 Table 3: Message Type registration procedures 599 The updated assignments for the "Message Types" registry will look 600 like this: 602 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 603 | Value | Meaning | Reference | 604 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 605 | 0 | Reserved | This document | 606 | 1 | MPLS Echo Request | [RFC8029] | 607 | 2 | MPLS Echo Reply | [RFC8029] | 608 | 3 | MPLS Proxy Ping Request | [RFC7555] | 609 | 4 | MPLS Proxy Ping Reply | [RFC7555] | 610 | 5 | MPLS Relayed Echo Reply | [RFC7743] | 611 | 6-247 | Unassigned | | 612 | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | 613 | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] | 614 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 616 Table 4: Assignments for the Message Types registry 618 6.1.2. Updates to the Reply Modes registry 620 This is the changes to the "Reply Modes" registry specified in this 621 document: 623 o Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Reserved. 625 o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to 626 "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is 627 removed. 629 o Four code point have been taken from what was earlier 630 "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for 631 "Experimental Use". 633 The registration procedures after the changes for the "Reply Modes" 634 registry are show in the table below: 636 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 637 | Range | Registration | Note | 638 | | Procedures | | 639 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 640 | 0-191 | Standards Action | | 641 | 192-247 | RFC Required | | 642 | 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 643 | 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 644 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 646 Table 5: Reply Modes registration procedures 648 The updated assignments for the "Reply Modes" registry will look like 649 this: 651 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 652 | Value | Meaning | Reference | 653 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 654 | 0 | Reserved | This document | 655 | 1 | Do not reply | [RFC8029] | 656 | 2 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | [RFC8029] | 657 | | packet | | 658 | 3 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | [RFC8029] | 659 | | packet with Router Alert | | 660 | 4 | Reply via application-level | [RFC8029] | 661 | | control channel | | 662 | 5 | Reply via Specified Path | [RFC7110] | 663 | 6-247 | Unassigned | | 664 | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | 665 | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] | 666 +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ 668 Table 6: Assignments for the Reply Modes registry 670 6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes registry 672 These are the changes to the "Return Codes" registry specified in 673 this document: 675 o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to 676 "RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is 677 removed. 679 o Four code point have been taken from what was earlier 680 "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for 681 "Experimental Use". 683 The registration procedures after the changes for the "Return Codes" 684 registry are show in the table below: 686 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 687 | Range | Registration | Note | 688 | | Procedures | | 689 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 690 | 0-191 | Standards Action | | 691 | 192-247 | RFC Required | | 692 | 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 693 | 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned | 694 +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 696 Table 7: Return Codes registration procedures 698 The updated assignments for the "Return Codes" registry will look 699 like this: 701 +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+ 702 | Value | Meaning | Reference | 703 +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+ 704 | 0 | No Return Code | This document | 705 | 1 | Malformed echo request received | [RFC8029] | 706 | 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not | [RFC8029] | 707 | | understood | | 708 | 3 | Replying router is an egress for | [RFC8029] | 709 | | the FEC at stack-depth | | 710 | 4 | Replying router has no mapping | [RFC8029] | 711 | | for the FEC at stack-depth | | 712 | 5 | Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See | [RFC8029] | 713 | | [1]) | | 714 | 6 | Upstream Interface Index Unknown | [RFC8029] | 715 | | (See [1]) | | 716 | 7 | Reserved | [RFC8029] | 717 | 8 | Label switched at stack-depth | [RFC8029] | 718 | | | | 719 | 9 | Label switched but no MPLS | [RFC8029] | 720 | | forwarding at stack-depth | | 721 | 10 | Mapping for this FEC is not the | [RFC8029] | 722 | | given label at stack-depth | | 723 | 11 | No label entry at stack-depth | [RFC8029] | 724 | | | | 725 | 12 | Protocol not associated with | [RFC8029] | 726 | | interface at FEC stack-depth | | 727 | | | | 728 | 13 | Premature termination of ping | [RFC8029] | 729 | | due to label stack shrinking to | | 730 | | a single label | | 731 | 14 | See DDMAP TLV for meaning of | [RFC8029] | 732 | | Return Code and Return Subcode | | 733 | | (See [2]) | | 734 | 15 | Label switched with FEC change | [RFC8029] | 735 | 16 | Proxy Ping not authorized | [RFC7555] | 736 | 17 | Proxy Ping parameters need to be | [RFC7555] | 737 | | modified | | 738 | 18 | MPLS Echo Request could not be | [RFC7555] | 739 | | sent | | 740 | 19 | Replying router has FEC mapping | [RFC7555] | 741 | | for topmost FEC | | 742 | 20 | One or more TLVs not returned | [RFC7743] | 743 | | due to MTU size | | 744 | 21 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] | 745 | | Version | | 746 | 22 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] | 747 | | Encapsulation format | | 748 | 23 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] | 749 | | Authentication Type | | 750 | 24 | OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD | [RFC7759] | 751 | | Authentication Key ID | | 752 | 25 | OAM Problem/Unsupported | [RFC7759] | 753 | | Timestamp Format | | 754 | 26 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay | [RFC7759] | 755 | | Mode | | 756 | 27 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss | [RFC7759] | 757 | | Mode | | 758 | 28 | OAM Problem/Delay variation | [RFC7759] | 759 | | unsupported | | 760 | 29 | OAM Problem/Dyadic mode | [RFC7759] | 761 | | unsupported | | 762 | 30 | OAM Problem/Loopback mode | [RFC7759] | 763 | | unsupported | | 764 | 31 | OAM Problem/Combined mode | [RFC7759] | 765 | | unsupported | | 766 | 32 | OAM Problem/Fault management | [RFC7759] | 767 | | signaling unsupported | | 768 | 33 | OAM Problem/Unable to create | [RFC7759] | 769 | | fault management association | | 770 | 34 | OAM Problem/PM Configuration | [RFC7759] | 771 | | Error | | 772 | 35 | Mapping for this FEC is not | [RFC8287] sec 7.4 | 773 | | associated with the incoming | | 774 | | interface | | 775 | 36-247 | Unassigned | | 776 | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | 777 | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] | 778 +---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+ 780 Table 8: Assignments for the Return Codes registry 782 Note 1: Notes [1] and [2] for code points 5, 6 and 14 point to 783 footnotes in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched 784 Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace. The footnotes are not 785 changed by this document. 787 Note 2: stands for "Return Subcode" and is explained in section 788 3.1 of RFC 8029 [RFC8029]. 790 6.2. Updates to the TLV and Sub-TLV registries 792 The updates to the TLV and the sub-TLV registries are mostly the 793 same, however the Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9 [IANA-Sub-9] have not been 794 updated. 796 Note that when a field in an assignment table says "EQ", it means 797 that there is no change from the existing field in the "Multiprotocol 798 Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" 799 namespace [IANA-LSP-PING] 801 6.2.1. Updates to the TLVs registry 803 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 804 assignments for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] based on the new 805 registration procedures. 807 The registration procedures have been changed, as follows, for the 808 "TLVs" registry. 810 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 811 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 812 has been removed. Note that when a field in an assignment table 813 says "EQ", it means that there is no change from the existing 814 field in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched 815 Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace [IANA-LSP-PING]. 817 o RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses the new 818 terminology, e.g. "Private Use". The code points registration 819 procedure "Private Use" has been replaced by the "First Come, 820 First Served" code point registration proceedure. 822 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 823 Experimental Use. 825 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 827 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 828 procedures. 830 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 831 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a TLV is not 832 recognized. 834 The registration procedures for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] 835 will now look like this: 837 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 838 | Range | Registration | Note | 839 | | Procedures | | 840 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 841 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that | 842 | | | require an error message if not | 843 | | | recognized. [This document, | 844 | | | section 3.1] | 845 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that | 846 | | | require an error message if not | 847 | | | recognized. [This document, | 848 | | | section 3.1] | 849 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 850 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 851 | | | require an error message if not | 852 | | | recognized. [This document, | 853 | | | section 3.1] | 854 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that | 855 | | | require an error message if not | 856 | | | recognized. [This document, | 857 | | | section 3.1] | 858 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that can | 859 | | | be silently dropped if not | 860 | | | recognized. | 861 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can | 862 | | | be silently dropped if not | 863 | | | recognized. | 864 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 865 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 866 | | | be silently dropped if not | 867 | | | recognized. | 868 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that can | 869 | | | be silently dropped if not | 870 | | | recognized. | 871 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 873 Table 9: TLV Registration Procedures 875 The TLV Assignments will now look like this. 877 Note that when a field in an assignment table says "EQ", it means 878 that there is no change from the existing field in the "Multiprotocol 879 Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" 880 namespace [IANA-LSP-PING] 881 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 882 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Sub-TLV Registry | 883 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 884 | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 885 | 1-7 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 886 | 8 | Unassigned | | | 887 | 9-16 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 888 | 17-19 | unassigned | | | 889 | 20-27 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 890 | 28-31739 | Unassigned | | | 891 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 892 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 893 | | | | range is for sub- | 894 | | | | TLVs that require | 895 | | | | an error message | 896 | | | | if not | 897 | | | | recognized. [This | 898 | | | | document, section | 899 | | | | 3.1] | 900 | 31744-32767 | Unassigned | | | 901 | 32768-32770 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 902 | 32771-64507 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 903 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 904 | | Use. | | be assigned. This | 905 | | | | range is for TLVs | 906 | | | | that can be | 907 | | | | silently dropped | 908 | | | | if not | 909 | | | | recognized. | 910 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 911 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 913 Table 10: TLV Assignments 915 6.2.2. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 917 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 918 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" 919 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub-registry based on the new registration 920 procedures. 922 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 923 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 924 has been removed. 926 o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has 927 been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code 928 points. 930 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 931 Experimental Use. 933 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 935 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 936 procedures. 938 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 939 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 940 not recognized. 942 The registration procedures for the 943 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub- 944 registry will now look like this: 946 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 947 | Range | Registration | Note | 948 | | Procedures | | 949 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 950 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 951 | | | require an error message if not | 952 | | | recognized. [This document, | 953 | | | section 3.1] | 954 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 955 | | | require an error message if not | 956 | | | recognized. [This document, | 957 | | | section 3.1] | 958 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 959 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 960 | | | require an error message if not | 961 | | | recognized. [This document, | 962 | | | section 3.1] | 963 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 964 | | | require an error message if not | 965 | | | recognized. [This document, | 966 | | | section 3.1] | 967 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 968 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 969 | | | recognized. | 970 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 971 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 972 | | | recognized. | 973 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 974 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 975 | | | be silently dropped if not | 976 | | | recognized. | 977 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 978 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 979 | | | recognized. | 980 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 982 Table 11: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 983 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 984 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 985 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 986 | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 987 | 1-4 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 988 | 5 | Unassigned | | | 989 | 6-8 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 990 | 9 | EQ | EQ | DEPRECATED | 991 | 10-20 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 992 | 21 | unassigned | | | 993 | 22-37 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 994 | 38-31739 | Unassigned | | | 995 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 996 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 997 | | | | range is for sub- | 998 | | | | TLVs that require | 999 | | | | an error message | 1000 | | | | if not | 1001 | | | | recognized. [This | 1002 | | | | document, section | 1003 | | | | 3.1] | 1004 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1005 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1006 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1007 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1008 | | | | that can be | 1009 | | | | silently dropped | 1010 | | | | if not | 1011 | | | | recognized. | 1012 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1013 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1015 Table 12: Sub-TLV for TLV 1, 16 and 21 Assignments 1017 6.2.3. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 1019 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 1020 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] sub- 1021 registry based on the new registration procedures. 1023 o RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses the new 1024 terminology, e.g. "Private Use". The code points registration 1025 procedure "Private Use" has been replaced by the "First come, 1026 First Served" code point registration proceedure. 1028 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 1029 Experimental Use. 1031 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 1033 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 1034 procedures. 1036 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 1037 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 1038 not recognized. 1040 The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" 1041 [IANA-Sub-6] sub-registry will now look like this: 1043 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1044 | Range | Registration | Note | 1045 | | Procedures | | 1046 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1047 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1048 | | | require an error message if not | 1049 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1050 | | | section 3.1] | 1051 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1052 | | | require an error message if not | 1053 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1054 | | | section 3.1] | 1055 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1056 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1057 | | | require an error message if not | 1058 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1059 | | | section 3.1] | 1060 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1061 | | | require an error message if not | 1062 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1063 | | | section 3.1] | 1064 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1065 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1066 | | | recognized. | 1067 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1068 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1069 | | | recognized. | 1070 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1071 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 1072 | | | be silently dropped if not | 1073 | | | recognized. | 1074 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1075 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1076 | | | recognized. | 1077 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1079 Table 13: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 6 1081 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1082 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 1083 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1084 | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1085 | 1-2 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1086 | 3-31739 | Unassigned | | | 1087 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 1088 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1089 | | | | range is for sub- | 1090 | | | | TLVs that require | 1091 | | | | an error message | 1092 | | | | if not | 1093 | | | | recognized. [This | 1094 | | | | document, section | 1095 | | | | 3.1] | 1096 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1097 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1098 | | Use. | | be assigned. This | 1099 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1100 | | | | that can be | 1101 | | | | silently dropped | 1102 | | | | if not | 1103 | | | | recognized. | 1104 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1105 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1107 Table 14: Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 Assignments 1109 6.2.4. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 1111 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 1112 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11] sub- 1113 registry based on the new registration procedures. 1115 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 1116 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 1117 has been removed. 1119 o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has 1120 been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code 1121 points. 1123 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 1124 Experimental Use. 1126 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 1128 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 1129 procedures. 1131 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 1132 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 1133 not recognized. 1135 The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" 1136 [IANA-Sub-11] sub-registry will now look like this: 1138 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1139 | Range | Registration | Note | 1140 | | Procedures | | 1141 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1142 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1143 | | | require an error message if not | 1144 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1145 | | | section 3.1] | 1146 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1147 | | | require an error message if not | 1148 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1149 | | | section 3.1] | 1150 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1151 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1152 | | | require an error message if not | 1153 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1154 | | | section 3.1] | 1155 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1156 | | | require an error message if not | 1157 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1158 | | | section 3.1] | 1159 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1160 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1161 | | | recognized. | 1162 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1163 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1164 | | | recognized. | 1165 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1166 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 1167 | | | be silently dropped if not | 1168 | | | recognized. | 1169 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1170 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1171 | | | recognized. | 1172 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1174 Table 15: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 11 1176 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1177 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 1178 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1179 | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1180 | 1-4 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1181 | 5-31739 | Unassigned | | | 1182 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 1183 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1184 | | | | range is for sub- | 1185 | | | | TLVs that require | 1186 | | | | an error message | 1187 | | | | if not | 1188 | | | | recognized. [This | 1189 | | | | document, section | 1190 | | | | 3.1] | 1191 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1192 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1193 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1194 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1195 | | | | that can be | 1196 | | | | silently dropped | 1197 | | | | if not | 1198 | | | | recognized. | 1199 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1200 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1202 Table 16: Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 Assignments 1204 6.2.5. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 1206 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 1207 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20] sub- 1208 registry based on the new registration procedures. 1210 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 1211 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 1212 has been removed. 1214 o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has 1215 been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code 1216 points. 1218 o Two small sets, 4 code ve been created for Experimental Use. 1220 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 1222 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 1223 procedures. 1225 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 1226 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 1227 not recognized. 1229 The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" 1230 [IANA-Sub-20] sub-registry will now look like this: 1232 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1233 | Range | Registration | Note | 1234 | | Procedures | | 1235 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1236 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1237 | | | require an error message if not | 1238 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1239 | | | section 3.1] | 1240 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1241 | | | require an error message if not | 1242 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1243 | | | section 3.1] | 1244 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1245 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1246 | | | require an error message if not | 1247 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1248 | | | section 3.1] | 1249 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1250 | | | require an error message if not | 1251 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1252 | | | section 3.1] | 1253 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1254 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1255 | | | recognized. | 1256 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1257 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1258 | | | recognized. | 1259 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1260 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 1261 | | | be silently dropped if not | 1262 | | | recognized. | 1263 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1264 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1265 | | | recognized. | 1266 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1268 Table 17: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 20 1270 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1271 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 1272 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1273 | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1274 | 1-5 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1275 | 6-31739 | Unassigned | | | 1276 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 1277 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1278 | | | | range is for sub- | 1279 | | | | TLVs that require | 1280 | | | | an error message | 1281 | | | | if not | 1282 | | | | recognized. [This | 1283 | | | | document, section | 1284 | | | | 3.1] | 1285 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1286 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1287 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1288 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1289 | | | | that can be | 1290 | | | | silently dropped | 1291 | | | | if not | 1292 | | | | recognized. | 1293 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1294 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1296 Table 18: Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 Assignments 1298 6.2.6. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 1300 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 1301 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23] sub- 1302 registry based on the new registration procedures. 1304 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 1305 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 1306 has been removed. 1308 o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has 1309 been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code 1310 points. 1312 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 1313 Experimental Use. 1315 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 1317 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 1318 procedures. 1320 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 1321 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 1322 not recognized. 1324 The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" 1325 [IANA-Sub-23] sub-registry will now look like this: 1327 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1328 | Range | Registration | Note | 1329 | | Procedures | | 1330 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1331 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1332 | | | require an error message if not | 1333 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1334 | | | section 3.1] | 1335 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1336 | | | require an error message if not | 1337 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1338 | | | section 3.1] | 1339 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1340 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1341 | | | require an error message if not | 1342 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1343 | | | section 3.1] | 1344 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1345 | | | require an error message if not | 1346 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1347 | | | section 3.1] | 1348 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1349 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1350 | | | recognized. | 1351 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1352 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1353 | | | recognized. | 1354 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1355 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 1356 | | | be silently dropped if not | 1357 | | | recognized. | 1358 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1359 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1360 | | | recognized. | 1361 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1363 Table 19: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 23 1365 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1366 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 1367 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1368 | 0 | Reserved | [RFC7555] | | 1369 | 1 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1370 | 2-31739 | Unassigned | | | 1371 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 1372 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1373 | | | | range is for sub- | 1374 | | | | TLVs that require | 1375 | | | | an error message | 1376 | | | | if not | 1377 | | | | recognized. [This | 1378 | | | | document, section | 1379 | | | | 3.1] | 1380 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1381 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1382 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1383 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1384 | | | | that can be | 1385 | | | | silently dropped | 1386 | | | | if not | 1387 | | | | recognized. | 1388 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1389 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1391 Table 20: Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 Assignments 1393 6.2.7. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 1395 This section describes the new registration procedures and the 1396 assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27] sub- 1397 registry based on the new registration procedures. 1399 o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been 1400 changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required" 1401 has been removed. 1403 o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has 1404 been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code 1405 points. 1407 o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for 1408 Experimental Use. 1410 o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. 1412 o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration 1413 procedures. 1415 o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed 1416 to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is 1417 not recognized. 1419 The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" 1420 [IANA-Sub-27] sub-registry will now look like this: 1422 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1423 | Range | Registration | Note | 1424 | | Procedures | | 1425 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1426 | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1427 | | | require an error message if not | 1428 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1429 | | | section 3.1] | 1430 | 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1431 | | | require an error message if not | 1432 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1433 | | | section 3.1] | 1434 | 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1435 | | | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1436 | | | require an error message if not | 1437 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1438 | | | section 3.1] | 1439 | 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1440 | | | require an error message if not | 1441 | | | recognized. [This document, | 1442 | | | section 3.1] | 1443 | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1444 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1445 | | | recognized. | 1446 | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1447 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1448 | | | recognized. | 1449 | 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. | 1450 | | | This range is for TLVs that can | 1451 | | | be silently dropped if not | 1452 | | | recognized. | 1453 | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that | 1454 | | | can be silently dropped if not | 1455 | | | recognized. | 1456 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ 1458 Table 21: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 1460 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1461 | Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment | 1462 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1463 | 0 | Reserved | [RFC7759] | | 1464 | 1-99 | Unassigned | | | 1465 | 100-104 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1466 | 105-199 | Unassigned | | | 1467 | 200-202 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1468 | 203-299 | Unassigned | | | 1469 | 300 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1470 | 301-399 | Unassigned | | | 1471 | 400 | EQ | EQ | EQ | 1472 | 401-31739 | Unassigned | | | 1473 | 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to | 1474 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1475 | | | | range is for sub- | 1476 | | | | TLVs that require | 1477 | | | | an error message | 1478 | | | | if not | 1479 | | | | recognized. [This | 1480 | | | | document, section | 1481 | | | | 3.1] | 1482 | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | 1483 | 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to | 1484 | | Use | | be assigned. This | 1485 | | | | range is for TLVs | 1486 | | | | that can be | 1487 | | | | silently dropped | 1488 | | | | if not | 1489 | | | | recognized. | 1490 | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | 1491 +-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+ 1493 Table 22: Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 Assignments 1495 7. Acknowledgements 1497 The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel, who both made very useful 1498 comments and agreed to serve as the document shepherd. 1500 The authors also wish to thank Michelle Cotton and Amanda Baber who 1501 very patiently worked with us to determine how our registries could 1502 and should be updated. 1504 The authors thanks Donald Eastlake and Tom Petch for careful and 1505 detailed reviews. 1507 8. References 1509 8.1. Normative References 1511 [IANA-LSP-PING] 1512 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths 1513 (LSPs) Ping Parameters", 1514 . 1517 [IANA-MT] "Message Types", . 1521 [IANA-RC] "Return Codes", . 1524 [IANA-RM] "Reply Modes", . 1527 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] 1528 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21", 1529 . 1533 [IANA-Sub-11] 1534 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11", 1535 . 1538 [IANA-Sub-20] 1539 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20", 1540 . 1543 [IANA-Sub-23] 1544 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23", 1545 . 1548 [IANA-Sub-27] 1549 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27", 1550 . 1553 [IANA-Sub-6] 1554 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6", 1555 . 1558 [IANA-TLV-reg] 1559 "TLVs", . 1562 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1563 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1564 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1565 . 1567 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 1568 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 1569 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 1570 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 1571 . 1573 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1574 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 1575 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 1576 . 1578 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 1579 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 1580 May 2017, . 1582 [RFC8611] Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., 1583 Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 1584 and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation 1585 Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611, 1586 June 2019, . 1588 8.2. Informative References 1590 [IANA-Sub-9] 1591 "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9", 1592 . 1595 [lsp-ping-Namespace] 1596 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths 1597 (LSPs) Ping Parameters", 1598 . 1601 [RFC7110] Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., Jounay, F., and S. Delord, 1602 "Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping", 1603 RFC 7110, DOI 10.17487/RFC7110, January 2014, 1604 . 1606 [RFC7555] Swallow, G., Lim, V., and S. Aldrin, "Proxy MPLS Echo 1607 Request", RFC 7555, DOI 10.17487/RFC7555, June 2015, 1608 . 1610 [RFC7743] Luo, J., Ed., Jin, L., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and G. 1611 Swallow, Ed., "Relayed Echo Reply Mechanism for Label 1612 Switched Path (LSP) Ping", RFC 7743, DOI 10.17487/RFC7743, 1613 January 2016, . 1615 [RFC7759] Bellagamba, E., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., 1616 Ward, D., and J. Drake, "Configuration of Proactive 1617 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 1618 Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label 1619 Switched Path (LSP) Ping", RFC 7759, DOI 10.17487/RFC7759, 1620 February 2016, . 1622 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 1623 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 1624 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 1625 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 1626 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 1627 . 1629 Authors' Addresses 1631 Loa Andersson 1632 Bronze Dragon Consulting 1634 Email: loa@pi.nu 1636 Mach Chen 1637 Huawei Technologies 1639 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 1641 Carlos Pignataro 1642 Cisco Systems 1644 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 1645 Tarek Saad 1646 Juniper Networks 1648 Email: tsaad@juniper.net