[mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
Michelle Cotton via RT <iana-issues-comment@iana.org> Thu, 22 October 2020 18:06 UTC
Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E000B3A098B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aNFcc1yBles9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C75AB3A098A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request4.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A8EE07EC; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:06:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request4.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A5F4E20534; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:06:32 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: michelle.cotton
From: Michelle Cotton via RT <iana-issues-comment@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-issues-comment@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.4.3-21295-1603389173-719.1180946-9-0@icann.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-1180946@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-21295-1603389173-719.1180946-9-0@icann.org>
Message-ID: <rt-4.4.3-13899-1603389992-1633.1180946-9-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1180946
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.4.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: michelle.cotton@icann.org
CC: loa@pi.nu, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:06:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/9_Uo6k30WF_A9MAJWxEixMgKPKo>
Subject: [mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:06:36 -0000
Loa,
I've taken a look at version 04 of this document.
Below you will find my comments with [MC]. I've pointed out some typos too.
Overall, the document seems to provide clear instructions on what IANA needs to change in the registries (both in registration procedures and specific changes to the registrations).
We'll do an official review when it goes through IETF Last Call.
Let us know if you have any further questions.
Thanks,
Michelle
1. Introduction
When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING].
RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC
8029. This document further clarifies the entries in those
registries and makes the definitions more precise.
This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by
updating two groups of registries as follows:
[MC] Question: Will we be replacing the RFC8029 and RFC8611 references with this document or adding this document as an additional reference?
First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes
[IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] are updated. The changes to
these registries are minor.
Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg].
o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21].
o Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 [IANA-Sub-6].
o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11].
o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20].
o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23].
o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27].
The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated.
Third, some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are "mandatory" or
"optional". Contrary to how other RFCs use these words, indicating
that it is mandatory or optional to include the code points in a
message, RFC 8029 uses these words to indicate that an action might
or might not be necessary. This document updates RFC 8029 to drop
the words "mandatory" and "optional", and the text is changed to
focus on what should be done.
1.2. Terminology Used in this Document
This docuemtment uses some terms that relates to IANA registries in
this way:
[MC] Typo “document”
IANA Name Space,
a name space is a top level registry. An exasmple could be
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" [IANA-LSP-PING]. A name space is most often a
contaimer for regiistries that hold code points that share some
affinity.
[MC] Typo “example”, “container”, “registries”
IANA Registry,
an IANA registry holds code points, and lists the registration
procedures and allocation of code points these code points. One
example would be the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg].
IANA Sub-registry,
a sub-registry is used when a code point allocated in a registry
need code points scoped by that or a set of code points. An
example of a sunregistry thast holds code points for more than one
TLV is "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
[MC] Typo “Sub registry”, “that”
2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries
The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and
Return Codes [IANA-MT] registries.
o In the listing of assiged code points the term "Vendor Private
Use" is changed to "Private Use".
[MC] Typo “Assigned”
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed.
o A small set of code points (4 code points) for Experimental Use is
added by reducing the range for "RFC Required" range.
o The registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use"
are added to the table of registration procedures.
o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use".
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
o In the lists that capture the assignment status, the fields that
are reserved, i.e. 0 (zero), Private Use and Experimental Use are
clearly marked as such.
* Note that in the Return Codes registry [IANA-RC] registry the
code point "0" has already been assigned. This assignment is
not changed and in this registry the code point "0" continues
to be assigned as "No Return Code".
The new Registration Procedures, the registry layouts and the new
assignments for these registries are found in Section 6.1.
3. Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries
3.1. General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV registries
The following principles apply to the processing of any TLV from any
of the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV IANA registries.
o All TLVs and sub-TLVs with a type in the range 0-32767 require a
response if they are not recognized.
o All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently
dropped, stepped over or an error message sennt if they are not
recognized.
[MC] Typo “sent”
The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into two
blocks, one with a range from 0 to 32767 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that
require a response if not recognized. The other block has the range
from 32768 to 65535 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently
dropped, stepped over or an error message sent, if not recognized.
Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following
registration procedures:
o Standards Action.
o RFC Required.
o Experimental Use.
o First come, first served (FCFS).
The exact defintions of these procedures are found in [RFC8126].
[MC] Typo “definitions”
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs
Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs in the Experimetal Use, and FCFS
ranges are handled as any other unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV.
[MC] Typo “Experimental”
o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
range (37140-37143) or from the FCFS range (31744-32767) a the
Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood")
will be sent in the echo response.
o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
range (64508-64511). or from the FCFS range (64512-65535) the
TLVs may be silently ignored, stepped over or an error message
sent.
The IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized
Experimental Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in
experimental or private networks, that is up to the agency running
the experiment or the private network. The statement above describes
how standards compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized
TLVs and sub- TLVs from these ranges.
3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs
This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV
and sub-TLV registries.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs an sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| 37140-37143 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs anf sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that can be silently |
| | | dropped if not recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that can be silently |
| | | dropped if not recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that can be silently |
| | | dropped if not recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
[MC] Should 37140-37143 | Experimental Use actually be
31740-31743 | Experimental Use?
3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries
This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
Registry, see section 6.2.1 to 6.2.7 describe how the new versions of
the IANA registries should look, together with the registration
procedures for each registry.
The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments
for these registries are used to model the changed MPLS LSP Ping
registries, see Section 6 .
3.3.1. Common Changes to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries
The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
o The registration procedures "First Come Frst Served (FCFS)" and
"Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration
procedures.
[MC] Typos “First”
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
o Two small sets of code points (4 code points each) for
Experiemental Use, are created. The first set are for the range
that requires a response if the TLV or sub-TLV is not recognised;
the second set are for the range there the TLV or sub-TLV that may
be silently dropped if not recognized. The code points for
experimental use are actually taken from the two ranges now called
"RFC Required".
[MC] Typo “Experimental”
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed.
o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is
changed to "First Come First Served (FCFS)".
o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is
added.
o A note saying "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
procedures "Experimental Use".
o In the list that captures assignment status, the fields that are
reserved, i.e. 0 (zero) and Experimental Use are clearly marked.
4. Updates to Related RFCs
Some referenced RFCs use the concept "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory
sub-TLVs" to indicate that, if a TLV or sub-TLV of the range 0-16383
or 16384-31743 in a message is not understood, an error message needs
to be sent in response.
The same RFCs use "optional TLVs" and "optional sub-TLVs" to mean
TLVs or sub-TLVs that can be silently ignored if not recognized.
Since other RFCs use "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to
indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs that must be present in a message, we want
to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs
that requires an error message in response if not understood. The
changes to the RFCs below align with this practice.
4.1. Updates to RFC 8029
Mandatory and optional are used to indicate whether a response is
needed if a TLV or sub-TLV is not understood on pages 14 and 15 in
Section 3 of RFC 8029.
The text in those two paragraphs are now updated to the following:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be
supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2
("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the
echo response.
An implementation that does not understand or support a received
TLV or sub-TLV with Type greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e.,
with the high-order bit equal to 1) SHOULD ignore and step over
the TLV or sub-TLV, however an implementation MAY send an echo
response with Return Code 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
understood") as it would have done if the high order bit had been
clear.
In Section 3.8 of RFC 8029 "mandatory" is used in the same way. The
first two paragraphs of this section are now updated to read as
follows:
The following TLV is a TLV that MAY be included in an echo reply
to inform the sender of an echo request that includes TLVs or sub-
TLVs Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to
0) are either not supported by the implementation or parsed and
found to be in error.
The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were
not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs.
4.2. Updates to RFC 8611
Section 13.4.1 of "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute
Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
[RFC8611]" defines "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6].
The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated to align with
changes defined in this document.
Section 13.4.1 of RFC 8611 is now updated as follows:
Section 13.4.1 Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6
IANA has created a new sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
[IANA-Sub-6] under the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] of the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" name space [lsp-ping-NameSpace].
The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" sub-registry is now updated to align
with changes defined in this document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved not to be assigned |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 1: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
5. Security Considerations
This document updates IANA registries. It also updates terminology
used to define, and clarifies the terminology related to, the code
points in the registries. The document does not change how the code-
points in the registries are used. This should not create any new
threats.
However, the updated terminology and the clarifications improve
security because it makes it more likely that implementations will be
consistent and harder to attack.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space
[IANA-LSP-PING] as described in this document.
See Section 1.2 "Terminology Used in this Document" to see how "name
space", "registry" and "sub-registry" are used in this document.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
In other parts of this document the communality of the changes to the
LSP Ping registries has been the focus. For the IANA considerations
each changed registry has been described in its own right.
The following registries and sub-registries are changed:
"Message Types", [IANA-MT],
"Reply Modes", [IANA-RM]
"Return Codes" [IANA-RC]
"TLVs" [IANA-TLV-reg]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27]
6.1. Updates to the Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes
Registries
This section details the updated registration procedures and
allocations for "Message Type", "Reply Mode" and "Return Codes"
registries.
6.1.1. Updates to the Mesage Type registry
[MC] Typo “Message”
This is the changes to the "Message Type" registry specified in this
document:
o Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Resereved.
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
removed.
o Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
"Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
"Experimental Use."
The registration procedures after the changes for the "Message Type"
registry are shown in the table below:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0-191 | Standards Action | |
| 192-247 | RFC Required | |
| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
Table 2: Message Type registration procedures
The updated assignments for the "Message Types" registry will look
like this:
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | MPLS Echo Request | [RFC8029] |
| 2 | MPLS Echo Reply | [RFC8029] |
| 3 | MPLS Proxy Ping Request | [RFC7555] |
| 4 | MPLS Proxy Ping Reply | [RFC7555] |
| 5 | MPLS Relayed Echo Reply | [RFC7743] |
| 6-247 | Unassigned | |
| 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
Table 3: Assignments for the Message Types registry
6.1.2. Updates to the Reply Modes registry
This is the changes to the "Reply Modes" registry specified in this
document:
o Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Resereved.
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
removed.
o Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
"Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
"Experimental Use".
The registration procedures after the changes for the "Reply Modes"
registry are show in the table below:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0-191 | Standards Action | |
| 192-247 | RFC Required | |
| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
Table 4: Reply Modes registration procedures
The updated assignments for the "Reply Modes" registry will look like
this:
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Do not reply | [RFC8029] |
| 2 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | [RFC8029] |
| | packet | |
| 3 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | [RFC8029] |
| | packet with Router Alert | |
| 4 | Reply via application-level | [RFC8029] |
| | control channel | |
| 5 | Reply via Specified Path | [RFC7110] |
| 6-247 | Unassigned | |
| 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
Table 5: Assignments for the Reply Modes registry
6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes registry
This is the changes to the "Return Codes" registry specified in this
document:
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
removed.
o Four code point has been taken from what was earlier
"Specification Required" to form a set of code points for
"Experimental Use".
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
The registration procedures after the changes for the "Return Codes"
registry are show in the table below:
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0-191 | Standards Action | |
| 192-247 | RFC Required | |
| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 252-255 | Private Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
Table 6: Return Codes registration procedures
The updated assignments for the "Return Codes" registry will look
like this:
+---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
| 0 | No Return Code | This document |
| 1 | Malformed echo request received | [RFC8029] |
| 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not | [RFC8029] |
| | understood | |
| 3 | Replying router is an egress for | [RFC8029] |
| | the FEC at stack-depth (RSC) | |
| 4 | Replying router has no mapping | [RFC8029] |
| | for the FEC at stack-depth (RSC) | |
| 5 | Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See | [RFC8029] |
| | [1]) | |
| 6 | Upstream Interface Index Unknown | [RFC8029] |
| | (See [1]) | |
| 7 | Reserved | [RFC8029] |
| 8 | Label switched at stack-depth | [RFC8029] |
| | (RSC) | |
| 9 | Label switched but no MPLS | [RFC8029] |
| | forwarding at stack-depth (RSC) | |
| 10 | Mapping for this FEC is not the | [RFC8029] |
| | given label at stack-depth (RSC) | |
| 11 | No label entry at stack-depth | [RFC8029] |
| | (RSC) | |
| 12 | Protocol not associated with | [RFC8029] |
| | interface at FEC stack-depth | |
| | (RSC) | |
| 13 | Premature termination of ping | [RFC8029] |
| | due to label stack shrinking to | |
| | a single label | |
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
| 14 | See DDMAP TLV for meaning of | [RFC8029] |
| | Return Code and Return Subcode | |
| | (See [2]) | |
| 15 | Label switched with FEC change | [RFC8029] |
| 16 | Proxy Ping not authorized | [RFC7555] |
| 17 | Proxy Ping parameters need to be | [RFC7555] |
| | modified | |
| 18 | MPLS Echo Request could not be | [RFC7555] |
| | sent | |
| 19 | Replying router has FEC mapping | [RFC7555] |
| | for topmost FEC | |
| 20 | One or more TLVs not returned | [RFC7743] |
| | due to MTU size | |
| 21 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] |
| | Version | |
| 22 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] |
| | Encapsulation format | |
| 23 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD | [RFC7759] |
| | Authentication Type | |
| 24 | OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD | [RFC7759] |
| | Authentication Key ID | |
| 25 | OAM Problem/Unsupported | [RFC7759] |
| | Timestamp Format | |
| 26 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay | [RFC7759] |
| | Mode | |
| 27 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss | [RFC7759] |
| | Mode | |
| 28 | AM Problem/Delay variation | [RFC7759] |
| | unsupported | |
| 29 | OAM Problem/Dyadic mode | [RFC7759] |
| | unsupported | |
| 30 | OAM Problem/Loopback mode | [RFC7759] |
| | unsupported | |
| 31 | OAM Problem/Combined mode | [RFC7759] |
| | unsupported | |
| 32 | OAM Problem/Fault management | [RFC7759] |
| | signaling unsupported | |
| 33 | OAM Problem/Unable to create | [RFC7759] |
| | fault management association | |
| 34 | OAM Problem/PM Configuration | [RFC7759] |
| | Error | |
| 35 | Mapping for this FEC is not | [RFC8287] sec 7.4 |
| | associated with the incoming | |
| | interface | |
| 36-247 | Unassigned | [RFC7759] |
| 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] |
+---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
Table 7: Assignments for the Return Codes registry
6.2. Updates to the TLV and sub-TLV registries
The updates to the TLV and the sub-TLV registries are mostly the
same, however the Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9 [IANA-Sub-9] has not been
updated.
Note that when a field in an assigment table sayds "EQ", it means
that the field should not be changed as compared to the corresponding
field in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space [IANA-LSP-PING]
[MC] Typos “assignment”, “says”
6.2.1. Updates to the TLVs registry
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] based on the new
registration procedures.
The registration procedures has been changed the following way for
the "TLVs" registry.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required or not if a TLV is not
recognized.
The registration procedures for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg]
will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 8: TLV Registration Procedures
The TLV Assignments will now look like this.
Note that when a field in this table does say "EQ", it means that if
should be the same as the registry being updtated.
[MC] Typo “updated”
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Sub-TLV Registry |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-7 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 8 | Unassigned | | |
| 9-16 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 17-19 | unassigned | | |
| 20-27 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 28-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-32767 | Unassigned | | |
| 32768-32770 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 32771-64507 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 9: TLV Assignments
6.2.2. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21"
[IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub-registry based on the new registration
procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
The registration procedures for the
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] sub-
registry will now look like this:
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 10: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-4 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 5 | Unassigned | | |
| 6-8 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 9 | EQ | EQ | DEPRECATED |
| 9-20 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 21 | unassigned | | |
| 22-37 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 38-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 11: Sub-TLV for TLV 1, 16 and 21 Assignments
6.2.3. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 6
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] sub-
registry based on the new registration procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
[IANA-Sub-6] sub-registry will now look like this:
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 12: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 6
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-2 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 3-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 13: Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 Assignments
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
6.2.4. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 11
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11] sub-
registry based on the new registration procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11"
[IANA-Sub-11] sub-registry will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 14: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 11
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-4 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 5-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 15: Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 Assignments
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
6.2.5. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 20
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20] sub-
registry based on the new registration procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20"
[IANA-Sub-20] sub-registry will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 16: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 20
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-5 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 6-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 17: Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 Assignments
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
6.2.6. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 23
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23] sub-
registry based on the new registration procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23"
[IANA-Sub-23] sub-registry will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 18: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 23
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | [RFC7555] | |
| 1 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 2-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
[MC] Typo “Reserved”
Table 19: Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 Assignments
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
6.2.7. Updates to the registry for SubTLVs for TLV 27
This section describes the new registration procedures and the
assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27] sub-
registry based on the new registration procedures.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed.
o The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has
been removed and replaced with "First Come, First Served" code
points.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, has been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
o The assignments have been updated to match the new registration
procedures.
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect when a response is required if a sub-TLV is not
recognized or not.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27"
[IANA-Sub-27] sub-registry will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 28, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2020
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37140-37144 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for Sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 20: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | [RFC7555] | |
| 1 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 2-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Resereved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 21: Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 Assignments
- [mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ietf-m… Michelle Cotton via RT
- Re: [mpls] [IANA #1180946] Early Review: draft-ie… Loa Andersson