Network Working Group Donald Eastlake 3rd
Internet-Draft Stellar Switches
Intended Status: Best Current Practice
Expires: December 23, 2009 June 24, 2009
IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
<draft-eastlake-nlpid-iana-considerations-00.txt>
Status of This Document
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document is intended to become a Best Current Practice.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
to the author.
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
the ISO/IEC Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID). This document
provides NLPID IANA Considerations.
D. Eastlake [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
Table of Contents
Status of This Document....................................1
Abstract...................................................1
1. Introduction............................................3
1.1 Acknowledgements.......................................3
2. NLPIDs..................................................4
2.1 Sub-ranges of the NLPID................................4
2.2 Code Point 0x80........................................4
2.3 NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation...................5
3. IANA Considerations.....................................6
4. Security Considerations.................................6
5. Normative References....................................7
6. Informative References..................................7
Appendix A: Initial IANA Web Page..........................8
Appendix B: RFC References to NLPID........................9
Copyright and IPR Provisions..............................10
Author's Address..........................................11
D. Eastlake [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
1. Introduction
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
the ISO/IEC Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID).
The term "NLPID" is not actually used in [ISO9577], which refers to
one octet IPIs (Initial Protocol Identifiers) and SPIs (Subsequent
Protocol Identifiers). While these are two logically separate kinds
of one octet identifiers, most values are usable as both an IPI and
an SPI. In the remainder of this document, the term NLPID is used for
these values.
This document provides NLPID IANA Considerations.
[RFC5226] is incorporated herein except to the extent that there are
contrary provisions in this document.
1.1 Acknowledgements
The contributions and support of the following people, listed in
alphabetic order, are gratefully acknowledged:
Ayan Banerjee, Dinesh Dutt, Don Fedyk, Russ Housley, Radia
Perlman, and Peter Ashwood-Smith.
D. Eastlake [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
2. NLPIDs
[ISO9577] defines one octet network layer protocol identifiers or
NLPIDs. The registry of NLPID values is maintained by ISO/IEC by
updating that document.
NLPIDs are used in a number of protocols. For example, in the
mar$pro.type field of the multicast address resolution server
protocol [RFC2022], the ar$pro.type field of the NBMA next hop
resolution protocol [RFC2332], and in the Protocols Supported TLV
[RFC1195] and BFD Enable TLV of IS-IS [BFD]. See Appendix B.
2.1 Sub-ranges of the NLPID
Sub-ranges of the possible NLPID values are categorized by [ISO9577]
as shown below:
Code Point Category
---------- --------
0x00 ISO/IEC
0x01-0x0F ITU-T
0x10-0x3F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x40-0x43 ISO/IEC
0x44 ITU-T
0x45-0x4F ISO/IEC
0x50-0x6F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0x70-0x7F Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0x80 ISO/IEC (see Section 2.2)
0x81-0x8F ISO/IEC
0x90-0xAF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xB0-0xBF ITU-T
0xC0-0xCF Potentially available for IANA (see Section 2.3)
0xD0-0xEF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
0xF0-0xFE Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
0xFF Reserved for an Extension mechanism to be
jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC
2.2 Code Point 0x80
NLPID 0x80 is known as the IEEE SNAP code point. It is followed by
five octets, using the IEEE SNAP SAP conventions, to specify the
protocol. Those conventions are described in Section 3 of [RFC5342].
In particular, it is valid for such a five-octet sequence to start
with the IANA OUI followed by two further octets assigned by IANA as
provided in [RFC5342]. The same IANA registry is used for such
protocol identifiers whether they are planned to be introduced by the
D. Eastlake [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
0x80 NLPID or the IEEE SNAP SAP LSAPs (0xAAAA). Values allocated by
IANA may be used in either context as appropriate.
Because of the very limited number of NLPID code points available for
IANA allocation, use of the IEEE SNAP NLPID is to be preferred to the
allocation of a new single octet NLPID code point.
2.3 NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation
A very limited number of code points are available that could be
allocated by IANA under [ISO9577]. Because of this, it is desirable,
where practical, to use code point 0x80, as discussed in Section 2.2
above, or to get code points allocated from the ranges categorized to
other organizations. For example, code point 0x8E was allocated for
IPv6 [RFC2460], although it is in a range of code points categorized
for ISO/IEC.
The table below, which includes two new code point allocations made
by this document, shows those currently available.
Code Point Status
---------- --------
0xC0 TRILL [TRILL]
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
0xC2-0xCB Available
0xCC IPv4 [RFC791]
0xCD-0xCE Available
0xCF PPP [RFC1661]
D. Eastlake [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
3. IANA Considerations
As long as code points are available, IANA will allocate values when
required by an IETF Standards Action.
Whenever it allocates an NLPID, IANA will inform the IETF liaison to
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6, or if IANA is unable to determine that IETF
liaison, the IAB. The liaison (or the IAB) will then assure that
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is informed so that [ISO9577] can be updated.
This document allocates the code points 0xC0 and 0xC1 as shown in
Section 2.3 and IANA shall request the liaison (or the IAB) to so
inform ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6.
IANA will maintain a web page showing NLPIDs that have been allocated
to a protocol being developed or extended by the IETF or are
otherwise of interest. The initial state of the web page shall be as
shown in Appendix A. IANA will update this web page for (1) NLPIDs
allocated by IANA and (2) other allocations when IANA is requested to
list such allocations by the IETF liaison mentioned above.
4. Security Considerations
This document is concerned with allocation of NLPIDs. It is not
directly concerned with security.
D. Eastlake [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
5. Normative References
[802.1aq] Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9: Shortest Path
Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D1.5, 17 December 2008.
[ISO9577] Information technology - Protocol identification in the
network layer, ISO/IEC TR 957:1999(E)7, 1999-12-15.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
[RFC5342] Eastlake 3rd., D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, September
2008.
[TRILL] Radia, P., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and Ghanwani, A.,
"RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", draft-ietf-trill-
rbridge-protocol-12.txt, Work in Progress, March 2009.
6. Informative References
[BFD] Hopps, C., and Ginsberg, L., "IS-IS BFD Enabled TLV", draft-
ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-01.txt, Work in Progress, April 2009.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC1707] McGovern, M. and R. Ullmann, "CATNIP: Common Architecture
for the Internet", RFC 1707, October 1994.
[RFC2022] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based
ATM Networks", RFC 2022, November 1996.
[RFC2332] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., and N.
Doraswamy, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC
2332, April 1998
D. Eastlake [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
Appendix A: Initial IANA Web Page
NLPIDs of interest:
Code Point Use
---------- --------
0x00 Null
0x80 IEEE SNAP (RFC thisdocument)
0x81 ISO CLNP
0x82 ISO ES-IS
0x83 IS-IS (RFC 1195)
0x8E IPv6 (RFC 2460)
0xC0 TRILL [TRILL]
0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
0xCC IPv4 (RFC 791)
0xCF PPP (RFC 1661)
Note: According to [RFC1707], NLPID 0x70 was assigned to IPv7. That
assignment appears to no longer be in effect as it is not listed in
[ISO9577]. IPv7 was itself a temporary code point assignment made
while a decision was being made between three candidates for the next
generation of IP after IPv4. Those candidates were assigned IPv6,
IPv7, and IPv8. IPv6 was selected.
RFC Editor Note: In "(RFC this document)" above, "this document"
should be replaced with the RFC number assigned to this document and
this note deleted before publication.
D. Eastlake [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
Appendix B: RFC References to NLPID
The following RFCs, issued before the end of March 2009, excluding
other survey RFCs and obsolete RFCs, reference the NLPID as such:
RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments
RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
Mode
RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
RFC 1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
RFC 1707 CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet
RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks
RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
Mode PIM
RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI
RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification
RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and
Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking
Function
RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay
D. Eastlake [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
Copyright and IPR Provisions
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For
the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
D. Eastlake [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT IANA Considerations for NLPIDs
Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Stellar Switches, Inc.
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
tel: +1-508-634-2066
email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
D. Eastlake [Page 11]
