MPLS Working Group C. Pignataro Internet-Draft R. Asati Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Expires: September 6, 2011 March 5, 2011 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update draft-asati-pignataro-mpls-ldp-iana-00 Abstract This document augments the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) considerations for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for protocol fields that are Reserved in the LDP Specification but for which there are no IANA allocation policies. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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. Pignataro & Asati Expires September 6, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP IANA Considerations March 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. ATM Label TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Frame Relay Label TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Common Hello Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Common Session Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5. ATM Session Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.6. Frame Relay Session Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pignataro & Asati Expires September 6, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP IANA Considerations March 2011 1. Introduction LDP [RFC5036] specifies a number of Reserved fields in various protocol elements, without establishing an allocation policy for them. This document describes updates to the IANA Considerations for LDP, for the following LDP TLVs: o ATM Label TLV o Frame Relay Label TLV o Common Hello Parameters TLV o Common Session Parameters TLV o ATM Session Parameters TLV o Frame Relay Session Parameters TLV All Reserved bit-fields mentioned specifically in this document are set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt, therefore protecting backwards compatibility. 2. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to add the Registration Procedures for the LDP fields as specified in the upcoming sections. All other LDP IANA Registration Procedures are to remain unmodified. 2.1. ATM Label TLV There are two Reserved bits in the ATM Label TLV (see Section 3.4.2.2 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. 2.2. Frame Relay Label TLV There are seven Reserved bits in the Frame Relay Label TLV (see Section 3.4.2.3 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. Additionally, Section 3.4.2.3 of [RFC5036] also defines values 0 and 2 for the "Len" field. "Len" values 1 and 3 are available for assignment via IETF Review or IESG Approvali [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these values. Pignataro & Asati Expires September 6, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP IANA Considerations March 2011 2.3. Common Hello Parameters TLV There are fourteen Reserved bits in the Common Hello Parameters TLV (see Section 3.5.2 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. 2.4. Common Session Parameters TLV There are six Reserved bits in the Common Session Parameters TLV (see Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. 2.5. ATM Session Parameters TLV Within the ATM Session Parameters TLV, there are twenty five Reserved bits in the header, and eight Reserved bits in the ATM Label Range Component (see Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. 2.6. Frame Relay Session Parameters TLV Within the Frame Relay Session Parameters TLV, there are twenty five Reserved bits in the header, and sixteen Reserved bits in the Frame Relay Label Range Component (see Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036]). Allocations from these bits are made via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these bits. Additionally, Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] also defines values 0 and 2 for the "Len" field. "Len" values 1 and 3 are available for assignment via IETF Review or IESG Approvali [RFC5226]. Previously, there was no rule for allocation of these values. These values are common with those of Section 2.2. 3. Security Considerations This document does not modify the security properties for LDP. 4. Acknowledgments TBD. Pignataro & Asati Expires September 6, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP IANA Considerations March 2011 5. Normative References [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Authors' Addresses Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: cpignata@cisco.com Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: rajiva@cisco.com Pignataro & Asati Expires September 6, 2011 [Page 5]