idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00.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 (Using the creation date from RFC4379, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-03-27) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 9, 2014) is 3455 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6424 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Decraene 3 Internet-Draft Orange 4 Updates: 4379, 6424 (if approved) N. Akiya 5 Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro 6 Expires: May 13, 2015 Cisco Systems 7 L. Andersson 8 S. Aldrin 9 Huawei Technologies 10 November 9, 2014 12 IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points 13 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00 15 Abstract 17 RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for Multiprotocol Label 18 Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. However, those RFC 19 did not create the corresponding IANA registries for DS Flags, 20 Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address Types. 22 There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these 23 name spaces. This document updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 in that it 24 creates the IANA registries for that purpose. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2015. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 1. Introduction 60 [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] created name spaces for MPLS LSP Ping. 61 However, those RFC did not create the corresponding IANA registries 62 for DS Flags, Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address Types. 64 There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these 65 name spaces. In particular [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] and 66 [I-D.akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath] are requesting allocation 67 for DS Flags and Multipath Type. 69 This document serves to update [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] in that it 70 creates the IANA registries for that purpose. 72 2. IANA Considerations 74 This document requests IANA to create new registries within 75 [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] protocol to maintain "DS Flags", "Multipath 76 Type", "Pad TLV" and "Address Types" fields. Name of registries and 77 initial values are described in immediate sub-sections to follow. 79 2.1. DS Flags 81 [RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping TLV, which has the Type 2 82 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 83 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. 85 [RFC6424] defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, which has the 86 Type 20 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) 87 Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. 89 DSMAP has been deprecated by DDMAP, but both TLVs shares a field: "DS 90 Flags". 92 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "DS 93 Flags" with the following registration procedure: 95 Registry Name: DS flags. 97 Bit number Name Reference 98 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 99 7 N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet RFC4379 100 6 I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379 101 5-0 Unassigned 103 Assignments of DS Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. 105 Note that "DS Flags" is a field included in two TLVs defined in 106 "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 107 Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2) 108 and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20). Modification to "DS 109 Flags" registry will affect both TLVs. 111 2.2. Multipath Type 113 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled 114 "Multipath Type" with the following registration procedure: 116 Registry Name: Multipath Type. 118 Value Meaning Reference 119 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 120 0 no multipath RFC4379 121 1 Unassigned 122 2 IP address RFC4379 123 3 Unassigned 124 4 IP address range RFC4379 125 5-7 Unassigned 126 8 Bit-masked IP address set RFC4379 127 9 Bit-masked label set RFC4379 128 10-250 Unassigned 129 251-254 Experimental This document 130 255 Reserved This document 132 Assignments of Multipath Types are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. 134 Note that "Multipath Type" is a field included in two TLVs defined in 135 "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 136 Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2) 137 and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20). Modification to 138 "Multipath Type" registry will affect both TLVs. 140 2.3. Pad Type 142 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "Pad 143 Type" with the following registration procedure: 145 Registry Name: Pad Type. 147 Value Meaning Reference 148 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 149 0 Reserved RFC4379 150 1 Drop Pad TLV from reply RFC4379 151 2 Copy Pad TLV to reply RFC4379 152 3-250 Unassigned 153 251-254 Experimental This document 154 255 Reserved This document 156 Assignments of Pad Types are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. 158 2.4. Interface and Label Stack Address Type 160 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled 161 "Interface and Label Stack Address Type" with the following 162 registration procedure: 164 Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack Address Type. 166 Value Meaning Reference 167 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 168 0 Reserved RFC4379 169 1 IPv4 Numbered RFC4379 170 2 IPv4 Unnumbered RFC4379 171 3 IPv6 Numbered RFC4379 172 4 IPv6 Unnumbered RFC4379 173 5-250 Unassigned 174 251-254 Experimental This document 175 255 Reserved This document 177 Assignments of Interface and Label Stack Address Types are via 178 Standards Action [RFC5226]. 180 3. Security Considerations 182 This document simply creates IANA registries for code point defined 183 in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424]. Thus, there are no new security 184 concerns. 186 4. Acknowledgements 188 TBD. 190 5. References 192 5.1. Normative References 194 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 195 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 196 February 2006. 198 [RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for 199 Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS 200 Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011. 202 5.2. Informative References 204 [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] 205 Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Malis, A., and S. 206 Aldrin, "Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) 207 Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)", 208 draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-03 (work in progress), 209 October 2014. 211 [I-D.akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath] 212 Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and 213 J. Drake, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath 214 Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", 215 draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-02 (work in 216 progress), October 2014. 218 [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] 219 IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 220 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", 221 . 224 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 225 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 226 May 2008. 228 Authors' Addresses 230 Bruno Decraene 231 Orange 233 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 234 Nobo Akiya 235 Cisco Systems 237 Email: nobo@cisco.com 239 Carlos Pignataro 240 Cisco Systems 242 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 244 Loa Andersson 245 Huawei Technologies 247 Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com 249 Sam Aldrin 250 Huawei Technologies 252 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com