Network Working Group K. Kompella Internet Draft Juniper Networks Proposed Category: Best Current Practice July 2004 Updates: 2328 2370 Expires: January 2005 IANA Considerations for OSPF draft-kompella-ospf-iana-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 a "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 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 1]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 Abstract This memo creates a number of OSPF registries and provides guidance to IANA for assignment of code points within these registries. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. 1. Introduction This memo defines various OSPF registries for IANA to set up and maintain for OSPF code points. In some cases, this memo defines ranges of code point values within these registries; each such range has a different assignment policy. The terms used in describing the assignment policies are as follows: - Standards Action - Experimentation - Vendor Private Use - Reserved Standards Action means that assignment in that range MUST only be made for Standards Track RFCs (as defined in [IANA]). A range of values may be reserved for Experimentation as set out in [EXPT]. Values from this range MUST NOT be assigned by IANA. Further guidance on the use of the Experimentation range may be found in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of [EXPT]. An implementation MAY choose to not support values from the Experimentation range. In such a case, the protocol data structure with a code point from the Experimentation range is ignored, unless other protocol machinery says how to deal with it. (An example of such protocol machinery is the U bit in OSPFv2 Opaque LSAs.) "Ignored" in this context means that the associated data structure is removed from the received packet before further processing, including flooding. Values set aside as Vendor Private Use MUST NOT be assigned by IANA. A protocol data structure whose code point falls in this range MUST have a disambiguating field identifying the Vendor. This identifier consists of four octets of the Vendor's SMI enterprise code (see [ENT]) in network byte order; the location of this code must be well-defined per data structure. An implementation that encounters a Vendor Private code point SHOULD check whether the enterprise code is Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 2]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 one that it recognises; if so, the implementation MAY choose to interpret the code point and data structure. Otherwise, it SHOULD ignore the code point, unless protocol machinery says how to deal with the data structure (as defined in the previous paragraph). This allows multiple vendor private extensions to co-exist in a network. Values in the Reserved range MUST NOT be assigned until a Standards Track or Best Common Practices RFC is published defining the assignment policy for that range. This RFC MUST be the product of the OSPF Working Group; if the OSPF WG is terminated, then it MUST be reviewed by an Expert Reviewer designated by the IESG. 2. OSPF Registries This section lists the various registries for OSPF protocol code points. Note that some of these are for OSPF, and some are specific to a particular version of OSPF; also, some registries pre-date this memo. Registries that are specific to one version of OSPF reflect the version number in the registry name (e.g., OSPFv2 Options). A registry whose name does not mention a version number applies to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 (e.g., OSPF Packet Type). 2.1. OSPFv2 Options (Defined in section A.2 of [OSPFv2], updated in section A.1 of [OPAQ]. See also [NSSA].) Assignment policy: Standards Action. 2.2. OSPFv3 Options (Defined in section A.2 of [OSPFv3]) Assignment policy: Standards Action. 2.3. OSPF Packet Type (Defined in section A.3.1 of [OSPFv2]) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-5 Already assigned 5-127 Standards Action 128-247 Reserved Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 3]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 248-251 Experimentation 252-255 Vendor Private Use In an OSPF packet with Packet Type in the Vendor Private Use range, the first four octets after the 24 octets of packet header MUST be the Vendor enterprise code. 2.3.1. OSPF Authentication Type (Defined in section A.3.1 of [OSPFv2]) (Note: this registry is called "OSPF AUTHENTICATION CODES" by IANA.) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0-2 Already assigned 3-247 Standards Action 248-65519 Reserved 65520-65535 Experimentation It is unclear at this point if it makes sense to have a Vendor Private Use range for this registry. 2.4. OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type (Defined in section A.4.1 of [OSPFv2]) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-11 Already assigned 12-127 Standards Action 128-247 Reserved 248-251 Experimentation 252-255 Vendor Private Use In an OSPFv2 LSA with LS Type in the Experimentation or Vendor Private Use ranges, the first four octets following the 20 octets of LSA header MUST be formatted as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|S|T| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where U, S and T are defined as follows (see also [OSPFv3]): Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 4]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 U-bit LSA Handling ------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Treat the LSA as if it had link-local flooding scope 1 Store and flood the LSA, as if type understood The S and T bits indicate the flooding scope of the LSA. The values are: S T Flooding Scope --------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 Link-Local Scoping. Flooded only on link it is originated on. 0 1 Area Scoping. Flooded to all routers in the originating area 1 0 AS Scoping. Flooded to all routers in the AS 1 1 Reserved In an OSPFv2 LSA with LS Type in the Vendor Private Use range, the second four octets following the 20 octets of LSA header MUST be the Vendor enterprise code. If a new LS Type is documented, the documentation SHOULD say how the Link State ID is to be filled in, as well as the flooding scope of the LSA. 2.4.1. OSPFv2 Router LSA Link Type (Defined in section A.4.2 of [OSPFv2]) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-4 Already assigned 5-127 Standards Action 128-247 Reserved 248-255 Experimentation There is no range for Vendor Private Use, as there is no space for an enterprise code to identify the Vendor. If a new Router LSA Link Type is documented, the documentation SHOULD say how the Link State ID, Link ID and Link Data fields are to be filled in. 2.4.2. OSPFv2 Router Properties (Defined in section A.4.2 of [OSPFv2], updated in [NSSA]) This field in the Router LSA is unnamed; it is the field immediately following the Router LSA length. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 5]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 Assignment policy: Standards Action. 2.5. OSPFv3 LSA Function Code (Defined in section A.4.2.1 of [OSPFv3]) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-9 Already assigned 10-247 Standards Action 248-8175 Reserved 8176-8183 Experimentation 8184-8191 Vendor Private Use In an OSPFv3 LSA with LSA Function Code in the Vendor Private Use range, the first four octets following the 20 octets of LSA header MUST be the Vendor enterprise code. If a new LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation MUST include the valid combinations of the U, S2 and S1 bits for the LSA. It SHOULD also say how the Link State ID is to be filled in. 2.5.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Options (Defined in section A.4.1.1 of [OSPFv3]) Assignment policy: Standards Action. 2.5.2. OSPFv3 Router LSA Link Type (Defined in section A.4.3 of [OSPFv3]) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-4 Already assigned 5-127 Standards Action 128-247 Reserved 248-255 Experimentation There is no range for Vendor Private Use, as there is no space for an enterprise code to identify the Vendor. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 6]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 2.6. OSPFv2 Opaque LSA Type (Defined in section A.2 of [OPAQ]) (Note: this registry is called "OSPF Opaque LSA Option" by IANA.) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-3 Already assigned 4-127 Standards Action 128-247 Reserved 248-251 Experimentation 252-255 Vendor Private Use In an OSPFv2 Opaque LSA with Opaque LSA Type in the Vendor Private Use range, the first four octets of Opaque Information MUST be the Vendor enterprise code. A document defining a new Standards Track Opaque LSA with TLVs and sub-TLVs MUST describe ranges and assignment policies for these TLVs. 2.6.1. OSPFv2 Grace LSA Top Level TLVs (Defined in Section A of [OSPF-GR].) Range Assignment Policy ----- ----------------- 0 Not to be assigned 1-3 Already assigned 4-247 Standards Action 248-65519 Reserved 65520-65527 Experimentation 65528-65535 Vendor Private Use In a Grace LSA, if a top-level TLV has a Type from the Vendor Private Use range, the Length MUST be at least four, and the first four octets of the Value field MUST be the Vendor enterprise code. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 7]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 3. Acknowledgments Many thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments. 4. Security Considerations The lack of adequate IANA guidelines may be viewed as an avenue for Denial of Service attacks on IETF protocols (in this case, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3), and on the IETF Standards Process in general. This memo attempts to close this loophole for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Authors contemplating extensions to OSPF SHOULD examine such extensions carefully, and consider whether new registries are needed, and if so, allocation policies within each registry. 5. IANA Considerations Done, at last. 6. Normative References [EXPT] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004 [IANA] Narten, T., and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 [NSSA] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", RFC 3101, January 2003 [OPAQ] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 1998 [OSPF-GR] Moy, J. et al, "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003 [OSPFv2] Moy, J. (Editor), "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998 [OSPFv3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and Moy, J. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999 Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 8]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 7. Informative References [ENT] IANA PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS, http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers Author's Addresses Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Email: kireeti@juniper.net Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 9]
Internet Draft IANA Considerations for OSPF July 2004 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Disclaimer This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Acknowledgement: Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Kompella Best Current Practice [Page 10]