[CCAMP] Request for early IANA Allocation for draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi CCAMP WG Chairs,

Following the procedure for Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points defined in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120, on behalf of the authors of the WG draft "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs",  draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09, we are requesting to CCAMP WG chairs the early allocation of the following values:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-09#section-6

6.1. Association Types

   New Association Types for ASSOCIATION and Extended ASSOCIATION Objects are defined in this document as follows:

   Value      Type
   -----      -----
   4 (TBD)    Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (D)
   5 (TBD)    Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP (A)

   IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters).  "Association Type" subregistry is included in this registry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

6.2.  REVERSE_LSP Object
   A new class type for RSVP REVERSE_LSP Object has been requested in the 11bbbbbb range (TBD) with the following definition:

   Class Types or C-types (TBD), Value (TBD): REVERSE_LSP Object

   IANA maintains the "RSVP Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types subregistry is included in this registry, which will be extended and updated by this document.

The main reason for this request is that this draft has been implemented in a shipping product (using values from the draft and reserved range) but this can now lead to interoperability issues and we like to make sure we are using standard values before software is largely deployed in networks and avoid interoperability issues.


Thank you,
Rakesh and co-authors