Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update
MPLS Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting
Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 1, 2021 C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems
T. Saad
Juniper Networks
February 28, 2021
Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-11
Abstract
This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 which both define IANA
registries for MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping, in particular the
registration procedure "Private Use" (esarlier know as "Vendor
Private Use") is changed to "First Come, First Served" the TLV and
Sub-TLV Registries.
It also updates the description of the procedures for the responses
sent when an unknown or erroneous code point is found. The updates
are to clarify and align this namespace with recent developments,
e.g. the updates to " Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs" (e.g. RFC 8126), instead of the terminology from
the obsoleted RFC 5226.
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 September 1, 2021.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1. Terminology Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes
Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV
registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs . . . 7
3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 8
3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Common Changes to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries . . 9
4. Updates to Related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Updates to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Updates to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Updates to the Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes
Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1. Updates to the Message Type registry . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. Updates to the Reply Modes registry . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes registry . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Updates to the TLV and Sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.1. Updates to the TLVs registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.2. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16
and 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.3. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 . . . 24
6.2.4. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 . . . 27
6.2.5. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 . . . 29
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
6.2.6. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 . . . 31
6.2.7. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 . . . 33
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1. Introduction
There were a number of reasons to start the work that has led to this
document, e.g.:
o When the LSP Ping registry was created it was incorrectly assumed
that code points allocated by Experimental RFCs would be
'experimental' code points; a code point made available in a
public IANA registry is not limited by the type of RFC that made
the allocation but is available for any document.
o The number of 'experimental' code points was also too large, as
compared to what is normally allocated for "Experimental Use".
o RFC 8029 uses the words "mandatory" and "optional" differently to
how other RFC do. RFC 8029 for example talks about mandatory TLVs
to indicate that it is mandatory to take a certain action if the
TLV is found in a message but not recognized, other RFCs uses
"mandatory TLV" to indicate a TLV that must be present in a
message.
Over time there have been attempts to administratively update some of
the registries, but it was soon decided that an RFC was needed.
Other, often minor, potential updates were found, e.g. reserving the
value 0 (zero) in registries where that is possible.
When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" IANA namespace [IANA-LSP-PING].
RFC 8611 [RFC8611] created LSP Ping IANA registries that match RFC
8126. 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:
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.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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].
It should be noted that RFC 8029 was published before RFC 8126 and
uses old terminology for some registration procedures, e.g., "Vendor
Private Use". RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses newer
terminology, e.g., "Private Use". Both "Vendor Private Use" and
"Private Use" has been removed and replaced with "First come, first
served (FCFS) code points.
One reason to change from code point allocated by Vendor Private Use
or Private Use is that such code points are allowed in production
networks. Theoretically, it is possible that two vendors might use
the same code point value with different meanings. If such code is
ever deployed in the same network this could cause protocol issues
that would be hard to debug.
With FCFS code points this will not happen. Vendors that have
existing code using Vendor Private Use or Private Use code points
should register those code points as FSFC code points soon as this
document is published as an RFC.
The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated.
Third, according to RFC 8029 some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are
called "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 mandatory. This document
updates RFC 8029 to drop the words "mandatory" and "optional", and
the text is changed to focus on what should be done.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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.
1.2. Terminology
This section list terms that are used when discussing the hierarchy
of IANA registers (Section 1.2.1) and abbreviations used in IANA
registries update in this document (Section 1.2.2).
1.2.1. Terminology Used in this Document
This document uses some terms that relates to IANA registries in this
way:
IANA Name Space,
a namespace is a top level registry. An example could be
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" [IANA-LSP-PING]. A namespace is most often a
container for registries that hold code points that share some
affinity.
IANA Registry,
an IANA registry holds code points, and lists the registration
procedures and allocation 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, or a set of code points
allocated in a single registry, needs "sub-code points" scoped by
the code point or the set of code points. An example of a sub-
registry that holds code points for more than one TLV is
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" [IANA-Sub-1-16-21]
1.2.2. Abbreviations
This section list abbreviations used in the unchanged part of the
registries updated by this document. These abbreviations were
originally expanded in the document defining the registries. They
are listed here following the requirement to expand any abbreviation
that is not well-known. All these abbreviations are from the
Return Codes registry [IANA-RC].
BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
DDMAP - Downstream Detailed Mapping
FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class
OAM - Operation, Administration and Maintenance
PM - Performance Monitoring
RSC - Return Subcode
2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries
The following changes are made to the Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply
Modes [IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] registries.
o In the listing of assigned code points the term "Vendor Private
Use" is changed to "Private Use".
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 "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".
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] 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
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 TLVs and sub-TLVs 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 sent if they are 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 definitions of these procedures are found in [RFC8126].
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs
Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs in the Experimental Use, and FCFS
ranges are handled as any other unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV.
o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use
range (31740-31743) or from the FCFS range (31744-32767) a Return
Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") must 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 experimental or the private network. The statement above
describes how standards compliant implementations must treat the
unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs from these ranges.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs
This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV
and sub-TLV registries.
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| | | [This document, section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| | | [This document, section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| | | [This document, section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that require an error |
| | | message if not recognized. |
| | | [This document, section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that can be silently |
| | | dropped if not recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs and sub- |
| | | TLVs that can be silently |
| | | dropped if not recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 1: TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries
This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
Registry. Section 6.2.1 to 6.2.7 describe how the new versions of
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 First Served (FCFS)" and
"Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration
procedures.
o Two small sets of code points (4 code points each) for
Experimental Use, are created. The first set is for the range
that requires a response if the TLV or sub-TLV is not recognized;
the second set is for the range where the TLV or sub-TLV that may
be silently dropped if not recognized. The code points for
experimental use are taken from the ranges previously (RFC 8029)
called 'Specification Required' and (RFC 8611) "RFC Required".
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 0-32767
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.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 require 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 15 and 16 in
Section 3 of RFC 8029.
The text in those two paragraphs is now updated to the following:
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) that 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].
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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" namespace [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 September 1, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 2: 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.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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" namespace
[IANA-LSP-PING] as described in this document.
See Section 1.2.1 "Terminology Used in this Document" to see how
"namespace", "registry" and "sub-registry" are used in this document.
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]
This document will be listed as an additional reference for each of
the registries described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.
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 Message Type registry
This is the changes to the "Message Type" registry specified in this
document:
o Code Point 0 (zero) is marked Reserved.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
removed.
o Four code point have 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:
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 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 3: 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 4: 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 Reserved.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
o The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to
"RFC Required" and the comment "Experimental RFC needed" is
removed.
o Four code point have 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:
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 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 5: 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 6: Assignments for the Reply Modes registry
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes registry
These are 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 have 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 "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 7: 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] |
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
| | <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 | |
| 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 | OAM 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 | |
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
| 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 | |
| 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] |
+---------+----------------------------------+----------------------+
Table 8: Assignments for the Return Codes registry
Note 1: Notes [1] and [2] for code points 5, 6 and 14 point to
footnotes in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace. The footnotes are not
changed by this document.
Note 2: <RSC> stands for "Return Subcode" and is explained in section
3.1 of RFC 8029 [RFC8029].
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] have not been
updated.
Note that when a field in an assignment table says "EQ", it means
that there is no change from the existing field in the "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
namespace [IANA-LSP-PING]
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 have been changed, as follows, for the
"TLVs" registry.
o The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been
changed to "RFC Required", the comment "Experimental RFC Required"
has been removed. Note that when a field in an assignment table
says "EQ", it means that there is no change from the existing
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
field in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace [IANA-LSP-PING].
o RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses the new
terminology, e.g. "Private Use". The code points registration
procedure "Private Use" has been replaced by the "First Come,
First Served" code point registration proceedure.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have 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 whether 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 September 1, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 9: TLV Registration Procedures
The TLV Assignments will now look like this.
Note that when a field in an assignment table says "EQ", it means
that there is no change from the existing field in the "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
namespace [IANA-LSP-PING]
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | Unassigned | | |
| 32768-32770 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 32771-64507 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use. | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 10: TLV Assignments
6.2.2. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have 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 whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
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:
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 11: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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 |
| 10-20 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 21 | unassigned | | |
| 22-37 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 38-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 12: Sub-TLV for TLV 1, 16 and 21 Assignments
6.2.3. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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 RFC 8611 was published after RFC 8126 and uses the new
terminology, e.g. "Private Use". The code points registration
procedure "Private Use" has been replaced by the "First come,
First Served" code point registration proceedure.
o Two small sets, 4 code points each, have been created for
Experimental Use.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6"
[IANA-Sub-6] sub-registry will now look like this:
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 13: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 6
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use. | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 14: Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 Assignments
6.2.4. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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, have been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11"
[IANA-Sub-11] 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. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 15: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 11
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 16: Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 Assignments
6.2.5. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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 ve 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.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
o The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed
to reflect whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20"
[IANA-Sub-20] 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. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 17: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 20
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 18: Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 Assignments
6.2.6. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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, have been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23"
[IANA-Sub-23] 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. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 19: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 23
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 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. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 20: Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 Assignments
6.2.7. Updates to the registry for Sub-TLVs 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, have been created for
Experimental Use.
o Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
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 whether a response is required or not if a sub-TLV is
not recognized.
The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27"
[IANA-Sub-27] 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. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 16384-31739 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental Use | Reserved, not to be assigned. |
| | | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 31744-32767 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. [This document, |
| | | section 3.1] |
| 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. |
| | | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 21: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV 27
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Type | TLV Name | Reference | Comment |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | [RFC7759] | |
| 1-99 | Unassigned | | |
| 100-104 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 105-199 | Unassigned | | |
| 200-202 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 203-299 | Unassigned | | |
| 300 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 301-399 | Unassigned | | |
| 400 | EQ | EQ | EQ |
| 401-31739 | Unassigned | | |
| 31740-31743 | Experimental | This Document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for sub- |
| | | | TLVs that require |
| | | | an error message |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. [This |
| | | | document, section |
| | | | 3.1] |
| 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | |
| 64508-64511 | Experimental | This document | Reserved, not to |
| | Use | | be assigned. This |
| | | | range is for TLVs |
| | | | that can be |
| | | | silently dropped |
| | | | if not |
| | | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
Table 22: Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 Assignments
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel, who both made very useful
comments and agreed to serve as the document shepherd.
The authors also wish to thank Michelle Cotton and Amanda Baber who
very patiently worked with us to determine how our registries could
and should be updated.
The authors thanks Donald Eastlake and Tom Petch for careful and
detailed reviews.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
8. References
8.1. 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/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.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.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.xhtml#sub-tlv-23>.
[IANA-Sub-27]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-27>.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
[IANA-Sub-6]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[IANA-Sub-9]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-9>.
[lsp-ping-Namespace]
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
[RFC7110] Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., Jounay, F., and S. Delord,
"Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping",
RFC 7110, DOI 10.17487/RFC7110, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7110>.
[RFC7555] Swallow, G., Lim, V., and S. Aldrin, "Proxy MPLS Echo
Request", RFC 7555, DOI 10.17487/RFC7555, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7555>.
[RFC7743] Luo, J., Ed., Jin, L., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and G.
Swallow, Ed., "Relayed Echo Reply Mechanism for Label
Switched Path (LSP) Ping", RFC 7743, DOI 10.17487/RFC7743,
January 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7743>.
[RFC7759] Bellagamba, E., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P.,
Ward, D., and J. Drake, "Configuration of Proactive
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label
Switched Path (LSP) Ping", RFC 7759, DOI 10.17487/RFC7759,
February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7759>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
Email: loa@pi.nu
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries February 2021
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Andersson, et al. Expires September 1, 2021 [Page 39]
