Network Working Group Scott Bradner
Internet-Draft Harvard University
Vern Paxson
ACIRI
October 1999
IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In
the Internet Protocol and Related Headers
<draft-bradner-iana-allocation-02.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This document will expire in February 2000.
Abstract
This memo provides guidance for the IANA to use in assigning
parameters for fields in the IPv4, TCP, UDP, ICMP and IPv6 protocol
headers.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Bradner & Paxson [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
1. Introduction
For many years the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
(www.iana.org) has allocated parameter values for fields in the
network protocols which have been created or are maintained by the
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Starting a few years ago the
IETF began to provide the IANA with guidance for the assignment of
parameters for fields in newly developed protocols. Unfortunately
this type of guidance was not consistently provided for the fields in
protocols developed before 1998. This memo attempts to codify
existing IANA practice used in the assignment of parameters in the
specific case of some of these protocols. It is expected that
additional memos will be developed in the future to codify existing
practice in other cases.
This memo addresses the fields within the IPv4, TCP, UDP, ICMP and
IPv6 headers for which the IANA assigns values.
The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval",
"IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to
refer to the processes described in [CONS].
2. Temporary Assignments
From time to time temporary assignments are made in the values for
fields in these headers for use in experiments. IESG Approval is
required for any such temporary assignments.
3. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv4 header
The IPv4 header [V4] contains the following fields that carry values
assigned by the IANA: Version (by definition always 4 in IPv4), Type
of Service, Protocol, Source Address, Destination Address, and Option
Type.
3.1 IPv4 IP Version field
The IANA allocates values from the IP Version name space following
a Standards Action process.
3.2 IPv4 Type of Service field
The Type of Service field described in [V4] has been superceded
[DIFF] by the 6-bit Differentiated Services (DS) field and a 2-bit
"currently unused" field. The IANA allocates values in the DS
field following the IANA Considerations section in [DIFF]. [ECN]
Bradner & Paxson [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
describes an experimental use of the 2-bit "currently unused"
field. Other experimental uses of this field are assigned after
IESG Approval processes. Permanent values in this field are
allocated following a Standards Action process.
3.3 IPv4 Protocol field
IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Protocol name space following
an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. The
Expert Review process should only be used in those special cases
where non-disclosure information is involved. In these cases the
expert should be designated by the IESG.
3.4 IPv4 Source and Destination addresses
The IPv4 source and destination addresses use the same values.
These values fall into a number of ranges defined in [V4] and
[MULT].
3.4.1 IPv4 Unicast addresses
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
recently accepted responsibility for the formulation of
specific guidelines for the allocation of the values from the
IPv4 unicast address space (values 0.0.0.0 through
223.255.255.255 ) other than values from the ranges 0/8 (which
was reserved in [AN80]) and 127/8 (from which the loopback
address has been taken) along with other values already
assigned by the IETF for special functions or purposes. (For
example, the private addresses defined in RFC 1918.) Further
assignments in the 0/8 and 127/8 ranges require a Standards
Action process since current IP implementations may break if
this is done.
3.4.2 IPv4 Multicast addresses
IPv4 addresses that fall in the range from 224.0.0.0 through
239.255.255.255 are known as multicast addresses. The IETF has
assigned a number of IPv4 multicast addresses for special
purposes. For example, the values in the range from 224.0.0.0
to 224.0.0.255 , inclusive, are reserved for the use of routing
protocols and other low-level topology discovery or maintenance
protocols, such as gateway discovery and group membership
reporting. (See the IANA web page) New values in this range are
assigned following an IESG Approval or Standards Action
process. Assignments of individual multicast address follow an
Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
Until further work is done on multicast protocols large-scale
Bradner & Paxson [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
assignments of IPv4 multicast addresses is not recommended.
3.4.3 IPv4 Reserved addresses
IPv4 addresses in the range from 240.0.0.0 through
247.255.255.255 are reserved [MULT] and compliant IPv4
implementations will discard any packets that make use of them.
Addresses in this range are not to be assigned unless an IETF
Standards Action modifies the IPv4 protocol in such a way as to
make these addresses valid.
3.5 IPv4 Option Type field
The IANA allocates values from the IPv4 Option Type name space
following an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards Action
process.
4. IANA Considerations for fields in the IPv6 header
The IPv6 header [V6] contains the following fields that carry values
assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Version (by definition always
6 in IPv6), Traffic Class, Next Header, Source and Destination
Address. In addition, the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination
Options extension headers include an Option Type field with values
assigned from an IANA-managed name space.
4.1 IPv6 Version field
The Version field in the IPv6 header uses the same name space as
the Version field in the IPv4 header. Values in this field are
allocated as described in Section 3.1.
4.2 IPv6 Traffic Class field
The IPv6 Traffic Class uses the same namespace as the IPv4 6-bit
DS field and 2-bit unused field. Values in these fields are
allocated as described in Section 3.2.
4.3 IPv6 Next Header field
The IPv6 Next Header field carries values from the same name space
as the IPv4 Protocol name space. These values are allocated as
discussed in Section 3.3.
4.4 IPv6 Source and Destination Unicast Addresses
The IPv6 Source and Destination address fields both use the same
Bradner & Paxson [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
values and are described in [V6AD]. The addresses are divided
into ranges defined by a variable length Format Prefix (FP).
4.4.1 IPv4 Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
recently accepted responsibility for the formulation of
specific guidelines for the assignment of values in the
Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses FP (FP 001).
4.4.2 IPv6 Anycast Addresses
IPv6 anycast addresses are defined in [V6AD]. Anycast
addresses are allocated from the unicast address space and
anycast addresses are syntactically indistinguishable from
unicast addresses. Assignment of IPv6 Anycast addresses
follows the process used for IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast
Addresses. (section 4.4)
4.4.3 IPv6 Multicast Addresses
IPv6 multicast addresses are defined in [V6AD]. They are
identified by a FP of 0xFF. Assignment guidelines for IPv6
multicast addresses are described in [MASGN].
4.4.4 IPv6 Unassigned and Reserved IPv6 Format Prefixes
The responsibility for assigning values in each of the
"unassigned" and "reserved" Format Prefixes is delegated by
IESG Approval or Standards Action processes since the
processing rules for these Format Prefixes have not been
defined.
4.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields
Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options
fields are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or
Standards Action processes.
5. IANA Considerations for fields in the ICMP header
The ICMP header [ICMP] contains the following fields that carry
values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code.
Values for the ICMP Type and Code fields are allocated using an IESG
Approval or Standards Action processes.
Bradner & Paxson [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
6. IANA Considerations for fields in the UDP header
The UDP header [UDP] contains the following fields that carry values
assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port.
Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
Action process. Note that some assignments may involve non-
disclosure information.
7. IANA Considerations for fields in the TCP header
The TCP header [TCP] contains the following fields that carry values
assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Source and Destination Port,
Reserved Bits, and Option Kind.
7.1 TCP Source and Destination Port fields
Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same
namespace. Values in this namespace are assigned following a
Specification Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF
Consensus, or Standards Action process. Note that some
assignments may involve non-disclosure information.
7.2 Reserved Bits in TCP Header
The reserved bits in the TCP header are assigned following a
Standards Action process.
7.3 TCP Option Kind field
Values in the Option Kind field are assigned following an IESG
Approval or Standards Action process.
8. Security Considerations
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned,
existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if
it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an
attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the
Standards Action and IETF Consensus processes ensure) for the
Bradner & Paxson [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
assignments whenever possible.
9. References
[AN80] Postel, J., "Assigned numbers", RFC 758, August 1979
[CONS] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998.
[DIFF] Nichols, K., S. Blake, F. Baker, D. Black, " Definition of the
Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6
Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[ECN] Ramakrishnan, K., S. Floyd, "A Proposal to add Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481, January 1999
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792,
September 1981.
[MASGN] Hinden, R., and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address
Assignments", RFC 2375, July 1998.
[MULT] Deering, S. E., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", RFC
988, July 1986
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, September
1981.
[UDP] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, August 1980.
[V4] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, September, 1981.
[V6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[V6AD] Hinden, R., S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998
10. Author's Addressees
Scott Bradner
Harvard University
Cambridge MA - USA
02138
sob@harvard.edu
+1 617 495 3864
Bradner & Paxson [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Assignments October 1999
Vern Paxson
ACIRI / ICSI
1947 Center Street, Suite 600
Berkeley, CA - USA
94704-1198
vern@aciri.org
+1 510/642-4274 x302
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Bradner & Paxson [Page 8]