idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02.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 (February 16, 2015) is 3356 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reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6424 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226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: August 20, 2015 Cisco Systems 7 L. Andersson 8 S. Aldrin 9 Huawei Technologies 10 February 16, 2015 12 IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points 13 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02 15 Abstract 17 RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for Multiprotocol Label 18 Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. However, those RFCs 19 did not create the corresponding IANA registries for the Downstream 20 Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address 21 Types. 23 There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these 24 name spaces. This document updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 in that it 25 creates the IANA registries for that purpose. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2015. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 1. Introduction 61 [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] created name spaces for MPLS LSP Ping. 62 However, those RFCs did not create the corresponding IANA registries 63 for DS Flags, Multipath Type, Pad TLV and Address Types. 65 There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these 66 name spaces. In particular [I-D.ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] and 67 [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath] are requesting allocation for 68 DS Flags and Multipath Type. 70 This document serves to update [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] in that it 71 creates the IANA registries for that purpose. 73 Note that "DS Flags" and "Multipath Type" are fields included in two 74 TLVs defined in "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched 75 Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV 76 (value 2) and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20). 77 Modification to their registry will affect both TLVs. 79 2. IANA Considerations 81 This document requests IANA to create new registries within 82 [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] protocol to maintain "DS Flags", "Multipath 83 Type", "Pad TLV" and "Address Types" fields. Name of registries and 84 initial values are described in immediate sub-sections to follow. 86 2.1. DS Flags 88 [RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping TLV, which has the Type 2 89 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 90 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. 92 [RFC6424] defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, which has the 93 Type 20 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) 94 Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. 96 DSMAP has been deprecated by DDMAP, but both TLVs share a field: "DS 97 Flags". 99 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "DS 100 Flags" with the following registration procedure: 102 Registry Name: DS Flags. 104 Bit number Name Reference 105 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 106 7 N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet RFC4379 107 6 I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379 108 5-0 Unassigned 110 Assignments of DS Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. 112 2.2. Multipath Type 114 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled 115 "Multipath Type". 117 The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are: 119 0-250 Standards Action 120 251-254 Experimental 121 255 Standards Action 123 IANA is requested to make the following initial assignments: 125 Registry Name: Multipath Type. 127 Value Meaning Reference 128 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 129 0 no multipath RFC4379 130 1 Unassigned 131 2 IP address RFC4379 132 3 Unassigned 133 4 IP address range RFC4379 134 5-7 Unassigned 135 8 Bit-masked IP address set RFC4379 136 9 Bit-masked label set RFC4379 137 10-250 Unassigned 138 251-254 Experimental This document 139 255 Reserved This document 141 2.3. Pad Type 143 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "Pad 144 Type". 146 The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are: 148 0-250 Standards Action 149 251-254 Experimental 150 255 Standards Action 152 IANA is requested to make the following initial assignments: 154 Registry Name: Pad Type. 156 Value Meaning Reference 157 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 158 0 Reserved RFC4379 159 1 Drop Pad TLV from reply RFC4379 160 2 Copy Pad TLV to reply RFC4379 161 3-250 Unassigned 162 251-254 Experimental This document 163 255 Reserved This document 165 2.4. Interface and Label Stack Address Type 167 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled 168 "Interface and Label Stack Address Type". 170 The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are: 172 0-250 Standards Action 173 251-254 Experimental 174 255 Standards Action 176 IANA is requested to make the following initial assignments: 178 Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack Address Type. 180 Value Meaning Reference 181 ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 182 0 Reserved RFC4379 183 1 IPv4 Numbered RFC4379 184 2 IPv4 Unnumbered RFC4379 185 3 IPv6 Numbered RFC4379 186 4 IPv6 Unnumbered RFC4379 187 5-250 Unassigned 188 251-254 Experimental This document 189 255 Reserved This document 191 3. Security Considerations 193 This document simply creates IANA registries for code point defined 194 in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424]. Thus, there are no new security 195 concerns. 197 4. References 199 4.1. Normative References 201 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 202 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 203 February 2006. 205 [RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for 206 Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS 207 Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011. 209 4.2. Informative References 211 [I-D.ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] 212 Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Malis, A., and S. 213 Aldrin, "Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) 214 Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)", 215 draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00 (work in progress), 216 December 2014. 218 [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath] 219 Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and 220 J. Drake, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath 221 Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", 222 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00 (work in 223 progress), January 2015. 225 [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] 226 IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 227 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", 228 . 231 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 232 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 233 May 2008. 235 Authors' Addresses 237 Bruno Decraene 238 Orange 240 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 242 Nobo Akiya 243 Cisco Systems 245 Email: nobo@cisco.com 247 Carlos Pignataro 248 Cisco Systems 250 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 252 Loa Andersson 253 Huawei Technologies 255 Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com 257 Sam Aldrin 258 Huawei Technologies 260 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com