RFC 7537 PROPOSED STANDARD MPLS · IANA · REGISTRIES
LSP Ping Registries: IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points
Creates IANA registries for four sets of MPLS LSP Ping code points that earlier RFCs left unregistered.
RFC EDITOR
Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points", RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>.
BIBTEX
@misc{rfc7537,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 7537,
howpublished = {RFC 7537},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC7537},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537},
author = {B. Decraene and N. Akiya and C. Pignataro and L. Andersson and S. Aldrin},
title = {{IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points}},
pagetotal = 7,
year = 2015,
month = may,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Decraene
Request for Comments: 7537 Orange
Updates: 4379, 6424 N. Akiya
Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
L. Andersson
S. Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
May 2015
IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points
Abstract
RFCs 4379 and 6424 created name spaces for Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. However, those RFCs
did not create the corresponding IANA registries for Downstream
Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and
Interface and Label Stack Address Types.
There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these
name spaces. This document updates RFCs 4379 and 6424 in that it
creates IANA registries for that purpose.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Multipath Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Pad Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Interface and Label Stack Address Type . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[RFC4379] and [RFC6424] created name spaces for MPLS LSP Ping.
However, those RFCs did not create the corresponding IANA registries
for DS Flags, Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label
Stack Address Types.
There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these
name spaces. In particular, [ENTROPY-LSP-PING] and [LSP-PING-LAG]
request new DS Flags and Multipath Type allocations.
This document updates [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] in that it creates IANA
registries for that purpose.
Note that "DS Flags" and "Multipath Type" are fields included in two
TLVs defined in the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream
Mapping (DEPRECATED) (value 2) and Downstream Detailed Mapping (value
20). Modification to either registry will affect both TLVs.
2. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA has created new registries within the "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
Parameters" [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] registry to maintain DS Flags,
Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label Stack Address
Types fields. The registry names and initial values are described in
the immediate subsections that follow.
2.1. DS Flags
[RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping (DSMAP) TLV, which has Type
2 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.
[RFC6424] defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV, which
has Type 20 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.
DSMAP has been deprecated by DDMAP, but both TLVs share a field: DS
Flags.
IANA has created and now maintains a registry entitled "DS Flags".
The registration policy for this registry is Standards Action
[RFC5226].
IANA has made the following initial assignments:
Registry Name: DS Flags
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
7 N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet RFC 4379
6 I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC 4379
5-0 Unassigned
2.2. Multipath Types
IANA has created and now maintains a registry entitled "Multipath
Types".
The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are as follows:
0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental Use
255 Standards Action
IANA has made the following initial assignments:
Registry Name: Multipath Types
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 no multipath RFC 4379
1 Unassigned
2 IP address RFC 4379
3 Unassigned
4 IP address range RFC 4379
5-7 Unassigned
8 Bit-masked IP address set RFC 4379
9 Bit-masked label set RFC 4379
10-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental Use This document
255 Reserved This document
2.3. Pad Type
IANA has created and now maintains a registry entitled "Pad Types".
The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:
0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental Use
255 Standards Action
IANA has made the following initial assignments:
Registry Name: Pad Types
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 Reserved This document
1 Drop Pad TLV from reply RFC 4379
2 Copy Pad TLV to reply RFC 4379
3-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental Use This document
255 Reserved This document
2.4. Interface and Label Stack Address Type
IANA has created and now maintains a registry entitled "Interface and
Label Stack Address Types".
The registration policies [RFC5226] for this registry are:
0-250 Standards Action
251-254 Experimental Use
255 Standards Action
IANA has made the following initial assignments:
Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack Address Types
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
0 Reserved This document
1 IPv4 Numbered RFC 4379
2 IPv4 Unnumbered RFC 4379
3 IPv6 Numbered RFC 4379
4 IPv6 Unnumbered RFC 4379
5-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental Use This document
255 Reserved This document
3. Security Considerations
This document simply creates IANA registries for code points defined
in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424]. Thus, there are no new security
concerns.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>.
4.2. Informative References
[ENTROPY-LSP-PING]
Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Malis, A., and S.
Aldrin, "Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW)
Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)",
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00,
December 2014.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters>.
[LSP-PING-LAG]
Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and
J. Drake, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath
Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", Work
in Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00,
January 2015.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Authors' Addresses
Bruno Decraene
Orange
EMail: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems
EMail: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Loa Andersson
Huawei Technologies
EMail: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
EMail: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
AI ELI5
On this page
PROBLEMRFC 4379 and RFC 6424 created name spaces for MPLS LSP Ping but never created IANA registries for DS Flags, Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label Stack Address Types, and new allocations were now needed.
MECHANISMThe document asks IANA to create those four registries, with registration policies and initial assignments taken from the earlier RFCs.
STATUS TODAYNew code points could be assigned in an orderly way. It has since been obsoleted by RFC 8029.
§1Why the Registries Were Needed
RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 defined name spaces for MPLS LSP Ping, but did not create the matching IANA registries for DS Flags, Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label Stack Address Types. Two other documents then in progress asked for new DS Flags and Multipath Type allocations, so there was a need to make further allocations.
RFC 7537 updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424 by creating these registries. It notes that DS Flags and Multipath Type are fields in two TLVs: Downstream Mapping (value 2, deprecated) and Downstream Detailed Mapping (value 20). A change to either registry therefore affects both TLVs.
People wanted to add new codes, but there was no official list to add them to. This document starts the lists.
§2Registry Rules and Starting Values
All four registries are created inside the existing "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry group.
The DS Flags registry uses Standards Action. Bit 7 is N (treat as a non-IP packet) and bit 6 is I (interface and label stack object request), both from RFC 4379. Bits 5 to 0 are unassigned.
The other three registries share one policy: values 0 to 250 by Standards Action, 251 to 254 for Experimental Use, and 255 by Standards Action.
- Multipath Types: 0 no multipath, 2 IP address, 4 IP address range, 8 bit-masked IP address set, 9 bit-masked label set. Values 251 to 254 are Experimental Use and 255 is Reserved.
- Pad Types: 0 Reserved, 1 drop the Pad TLV from the reply, 2 copy the Pad TLV to the reply, 251 to 254 Experimental Use, 255 Reserved.
- Interface and Label Stack Address Types: 0 Reserved, 1 IPv4 Numbered, 2 IPv4 Unnumbered, 3 IPv6 Numbered, 4 IPv6 Unnumbered, 251 to 254 Experimental Use, 255 Reserved.
Each notebook has some pages already filled in from the old documents. Some page numbers are kept for experiments, and new official codes need a proper standards document.
- 0Reserved — Set by this document.
- 1IPv4 Numbered — From RFC 4379.
- 2IPv4 Unnumbered — From RFC 4379.
- 3IPv6 Numbered — From RFC 4379.
- 4IPv6 Unnumbered — From RFC 4379.
- 251-254Experimental Use — Set by this document.
- 255Reserved — Set by this document.
§3Security Considerations
The document says it simply creates IANA registries for code points already defined in RFC 4379 and RFC 6424, so it raises no new security concerns.
Making a list of codes that already existed does not open any new doors for trouble.
§4Relationship to Other RFCs
RFC 7537 is a Standards Track document that updates RFC 4379 and RFC 6424. Its own metadata shows it was later obsoleted by RFC 8029, so the current definition of these registries should be read there.
This list was later replaced by a newer document, so the newer one is the one to check.
§5References
[RFC4379]RFC 4379Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.February 2006[RFC6424]RFC 6424Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.November 2011[RFC5226]RFC 5226Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.May 2008