Internet DRAFT - draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
MPLS Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting
Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) T. Saad
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: March 6, 2020 M. Chen
Huawei Techologies
C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems
September 3, 2019
Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-02
Abstract
This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that define IANA
registries for MPLS LSP Ping. The updates are mostly for
clarification and to align this registry with recent developments..
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes
Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-
TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries 7
5.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 8
5.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained among other things
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, but the registrations can be further clarified and their
definitions more precise.
This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by
updating two groups of registries.
First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes
[IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC]. The changes to these
registries are minor.
Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg]
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
o Sub-TLVs for TLV 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.
1.1. Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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 a small set of code points (4 code points) for experimental use is
added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use".
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 "Private Use"
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"
o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that
are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are
clearly marked.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
* In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0"
already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this
registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved".
The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for
these registries will be found in Section 5.1.
3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries
When a new LSP Ping sub-TLV registry were created by RFC 8611
[RFC8611] this registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] was
set up following the intentions of RFC 8029.
The registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" will serve as a model to
change/update the rest of the TLV and sub-TLV registries in this name
space.
The registration procedures in the current registry for "Sub-TLVs for
TLV Type 6" looks like this (2019-06-20). This will be used as a
base-line and some additions/changes will be made as captured in the
Appendixes:
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 31744-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | | that can be silently dropped if |
| | | not recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | | that can be silently dropped if |
| | | not recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
This document adds small ranges of code points for Experimental Use
to this registry and to registries listed in Section 5.2.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
All registries will be changed to reflect the same model.
3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries
The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub-
TLV IANA registries
o all mandatory TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not
recognized
o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not
recognized
o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs may be silently dropped if the are
not recognized
The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into to blocks,
one with a range from 0 to 49161 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require a
response if not recognized. Another block in the range from 49161 to
65535, this block is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently
dropped if not recognized.
Each of the blocks have code point spaces with the following
registration procedures:
o Standards Action
o RFC Required
o Experimental Use
o Private Use
The exact defintion of registration procedures for IANA registries
are found in [RFC8126]
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-TLVs
Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs for Expereimetal USe and Privagte Use
are handled as any other unrecognised TLV or sub-TLV.
o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
range (37144-37147) or from the Private Use range (31748-32767) a
the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
understood") will be sent in the echo response.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
range (64512-64515) or from the Private Use range (64515-65535)
the TLVs SHOULD be silently ignored.
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 relates to how standard
compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub-
TLVs from these ranges.
3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries
This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry, in
Section 5.1, Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 the changes are detailed and
it is shown what the IANA registry version of the registration
procedures and assignments would look like.
3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries
The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
o two small set of code points (2 times 4 code points) for
experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range
for "Private Use".
o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed
o In the listing of assignements the term "Vendor Private Use" is
changed to "Private Use"
o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is
added
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 "Experimental Use" and "Private Use"
o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are
reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly
marked.
The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments
for these registries will be found in Section 5.2 and Section 5.3.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
4. Security Considerations
TBA
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in
this document and documented in the Appendixies.
5.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries
This section details the updated registration procedures for Message
Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries.
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0-191 | Standards Action | |
| 192-247 | RFC Required | |
| 248-251 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
| 252-255 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
New common registration procedures
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1-247 | No changes to the existing | |
| | assignments | |
| 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] |
+---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
Common Assignments for the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Code
registries
Note that for the Return Code registry the assignment for code point
zero has been previously assigned, it is not changed but will remain:
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
| 0 | No return code | [RFC8029] |
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
Assignment for code point 0 in the Return Code registry
5.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs
This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV
and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([IANA-Sub-9] is
not changed.
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 37144-37147 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | | that can be silently dropped if |
| | | not recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | | that can be silently dropped if |
| | | not recognized. |
| 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
| 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
5.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs
The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments
for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9
([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV |
| | | | registry |
+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | |
| 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to | [any] |
| | | the current | |
| | | registry | |
| 37144-37147 | Reserved for | This document | NA |
| | Experimental Use | | |
| 31748-32767 | Reserved for | This document | NA |
| | Private Use | | |
| 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to | [any] |
| | | the current | |
| | | registry. | |
| 64512-64515 | Reserved for | This document | NA |
| | Experimental Use | | |
| 64515-65535 | Reserved for | This document | NA |
| | Private Use | | |
+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
TLV Assignments
Updated Sub-TLV assignments
+-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| Type | TLV name | Reference |
+-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to the |
| | | current registry |
| 37144-37147 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 31748-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
| 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to the |
| | | current registry. |
| 64512-64515 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 64515-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
+-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
Sub-TLV Assignments
6. Acknowledgements
TBA
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IANA-LSP-PING]
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml/>.
[IANA-MT] "Message Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#message-types>.
[IANA-RC] "Return Codes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/#return-codes>.
[IANA-RM] "Reply Modes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/#reply-modes>.
[IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/https://www.iana.org/
assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-1-16-21>.
[IANA-Sub-11]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-11>.
[IANA-Sub-20]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-20>.
[IANA-Sub-23]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-23>.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
[IANA-Sub-27]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-27>.
[IANA-Sub-6]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-6>.
[IANA-TLV-reg]
"TLVs", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#tlvs>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8611] Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611>.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA-Sub-9]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-9>.
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries September 2019
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
Email: loa@pi.nu
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com
Mach Chen
Huawei Techologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Andersson, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 12]
