diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt | 1819 |
1 files changed, 1819 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d759bc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9041.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1819 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Andersson +Request for Comments: 9041 Bronze Dragon Consulting +Updates: 8029, 8611 M. Chen +Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies +ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro + Cisco Systems + T. Saad + Juniper Networks + July 2021 + + + Updating the MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters IANA + Registry + +Abstract + + This document updates RFCs 8029 and 8611, both of which define IANA + registries for MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. In particular, + the registration procedure "Private Use" (previously known as "Vendor + Private Use") has been changed to "First Come First Served" for 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., aligning terminology with RFC 8126 instead of the now obsoleted + RFC 5226 (both titled "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations + Section in RFCs"). + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9041. + +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 + 1.1. Requirements Language + 1.2. Terminology + 1.2.1. Terminology Used in This Document + 1.2.2. Abbreviations + 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Modes, and Return Codes + Registries + 3. Updating the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries + 3.1. General Principles for the LSP Ping TLV and Sub-TLV + Registries + 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental Use TLVs and Sub-TLVs + 3.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and Sub-TLVs + 3.3. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries + 3.3.1. Changes Common to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries + 4. Updates to Related RFCs + 4.1. Updates to RFC 8029 + 4.2. Updates to RFC 8611 + 5. Security Considerations + 6. IANA Considerations + 6.1. Updates by IANA to the Message Types, Reply Modes, and + Return Codes Registries + 6.1.1. Updates to the Message Types Registry + 6.1.2. Updates to the Reply Modes Registry + 6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes Registry + 6.2. Updates to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries + 6.2.1. Updates to the TLVs Registry + 6.2.2. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, + 16, and 21 + 6.2.3. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 + 6.2.4. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11 + 6.2.5. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20 + 6.2.6. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23 + 6.2.7. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27 + 7. References + 7.1. Normative References + 7.2. Informative References + Acknowledgements + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + There were a number of reasons to start the work that has led to this + document, e.g., + + * 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: it is available for use in any type of document. + + * The number of "experimental" code points was also too large as + compared to what is normally allocated for "Experimental Use". + + * The words "mandatory" and "optional" are used differently in + [RFC8029] than in other RFCs. For example, [RFC8029] talks about + mandatory TLVs to indicate that it is mandatory to take a certain + action if the TLV is found in a message but is not recognized. + Other RFCs use "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. + + [RFC8029] contains updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching + (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA namespace + [IANA-LSP-PING]. + + [RFC8611] created LSP Ping IANA registries that match [RFC8126]. + This document further clarifies the entries in those registries and + makes the definitions more precise. + + This document updates [RFC8029] and [RFC8611] by updating two groups + of registries as follows: + + First, the "Message Types" [IANA-MT], "Reply Modes" [IANA-RM], and + "Return Codes" [IANA-RC] registries are updated. The changes to + these registries are minor. + + Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries listed + below: + + * "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] + + It should be noted that [RFC8029] was published before [RFC8126] and + uses outdated terminology for some registration procedures, e.g., + "Vendor Private Use". [RFC8611] was published after [RFC8126] and + uses its recommended terminology, e.g., "Private Use". However, now + both "Vendor Private Use" and "Private Use" have been removed and + replaced with "First Come First Served" (FCFS) code points. + + One reason to change from code points 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 a 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 FCFS code points as soon as this + document is published as an RFC. + + The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9" subregistry is not updated. + + Third, according to [RFC8029], 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, [RFC8029] uses these words to indicate + that an action might or might not be mandatory. This document + updates [RFC8029] to drop the words "mandatory" and "optional", and + the text is changed to focus on what should be done. + +1.1. Requirements 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 lists terms that are used when discussing the hierarchy + of IANA registries (Section 1.2.1), and abbreviations used in IANA + registries are updated in this document (Section 1.2.2). + +1.2.1. Terminology Used in This Document + + Terms related to IANA registries are used as follows in this + document: + + Namespace + 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. + + Registry + An IANA registry holds code points and lists the registration + procedures and allocation for these code points. One example + would be the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg]. + + Subregistry + A subregistry 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 + subregistry 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 lists 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 + + 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 Modes, and Return Codes Registries + + The following changes have been made to the "Message Types" + [IANA-MT], "Reply Modes" [IANA-RM], and "Return Codes" [IANA-RC] + registries. + + * In the listing of assigned code points, the term "Vendor Private + Use" is changed to "Private Use" for the 252-255 range. The + registration procedures have been updated to reflect this. + + * The registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to + "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed + for the 192-247 range. + + * A small set of four code points (248-251) for Experimental Use is + added by reducing the "RFC Required" range. The registration + procedures have been updated to reflect this. + + * A note "Reserved, not to be assigned" has been added for the + registration procedures of the "Private Use" and "Experimental + Use" ranges. + + * 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 + +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. + + * All TLVs and sub-TLVs with a type in the range 0-32767 require a + response if they are not recognized. + + * All TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 can be silently + dropped if they are not recognized. Alternatively, the receiver + may step over the unrecognized TLV or send an error message. + + Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following + registration procedures: + + * Standards Action + + * RFC Required + + * Experimental Use + + * 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. + + * 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. + + * If a TLV or sub-TLV from the Experimental Use range (64508-64511) + or from the FCFS range (64512-65535) is unrecognized, then the + receiver can silently drop the TLV. Alternatively, the receiver + may step over the unrecognized TLV or send an error message. + + 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. + +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 | This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range is | + | | Experimental | for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range is | + | | Experimental | for TLVs and sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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. Sections 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 procedure descriptions and the new assignments + for these registries are used to model the changed MPLS LSP Ping + registries; see Section 6. + +3.3.1. Changes Common to the TLV and Sub-TLV Registries + + The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries. + + * The registration procedures "First Come First Served" (FCFS) and + "Experimental Use" have been added to the table of registration + procedures. + + * Two small sets of code points (four code points each) for + Experimental Use have been 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 may be silently dropped if not recognized. The code points + for Experimental Use have been taken from the ranges previously + called "Specification Required" and "RFC Required" [RFC8029]. + + * The registration procedure "Specification Required" has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the note "Experimental RFC needed" + has been removed. + + * In the listing of assignments, the term "Vendor Private Use" has + been changed to "First Come First Served" (FCFS). + + * In the listing of assignments, the range for "Experimental Use" + has been added. + + * A note saying "Not to be assigned" has been added for the + registration procedure "Experimental Use". + + * In the list that captures assignment status, the fields that are + reserved, i.e., 0 (zero) and Experimental Use, have been 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. + + 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 in Section 3 of + "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" + [RFC8611]. + + 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 a 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 a 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 a Return Code of 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 [RFC8029], "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 TLV or sub- + | TLV 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 uses sub-TLVs to encode the received TLVs and sub- + | TLVs that were not understood. + +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 has been updated to align with + changes defined in this document. + + Section 13.4.1 of [RFC8611] is now updated as follows: + + | Section 13.4.1 Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 + + IANA has created a new subregistry, "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" subregistry is now updated to align + with changes defined in this document. + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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. + + 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 has updated 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 of "Terminology Used in This Document" to see how + "namespace", "registry", and "subregistry" are used in this document. + + In other parts of this document, the commonality 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 subregistries have been 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 has been listed as an additional reference for each of + the registries described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. + +6.1. Updates by IANA to the Message Types, Reply Modes, and Return + Codes Registries + + This section details the updated registration procedures and + allocations for the "Message Types", "Reply Modes", and "Return + Codes" registries. + +6.1.1. Updates to the Message Types Registry + + These are the changes to the "Message Types" registry specified in + this document: + + * Code Point 0 (zero) has been marked Reserved. + + * The registration procedure "Specification Required" has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + needed" has been removed. + + * Four code points have been taken from what was previously + "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for + "Experimental Use". + + The registration procedures after the changes listed above for the + "Message Types" registry are shown in the table below: + + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | Range | Registration Procedures | Note | + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | 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 Types Registration Procedures + + The updated assignments for the "Message Types" registry appear as + follows: + + +=========+===============================+===============+ + | 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 + + These are the changes to the "Reply Modes" registry specified in this + document: + + * Code Point 0 (zero) has been marked Reserved. + + * The registration procedure "Specification Required" has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + needed" has been removed. + + * Four code points have been taken from what was previously + "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for + "Experimental Use". + + The registration procedures after the changes for the "Reply Modes" + registry are shown in the table below: + + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | Range | Registration Procedures | Note | + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | 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 are as + follows: + + +=========+===================================+===============+ + | Value | Meaning | Reference | + +=========+===================================+===============+ + | 0 | Reserved | This document | + +---------+-----------------------------------+---------------+ + | 1 | Do not reply | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------+---------------+ + | 2 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------+---------------+ + | 3 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet | [RFC8029] | + | | 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 + +6.1.3. Updates to the Return Codes Registry + + These are the changes to the "Return Codes" registry specified in + this document: + + * The registration procedure "Specification Required" has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + needed" has been removed. + + * Four code points have been taken from what was previously + "Specification Required" to form a set of code points for + "Experimental Use". + + The registration procedures after the changes for the "Return Codes" + registry are shown in the table below: + + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | Range | Registration Procedures | Note | + +=========+=========================+==============================+ + | 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 are as + follows: + + +=========+=========================================+=============+ + | Value | Meaning | Reference | + +=========+=========================================+=============+ + | 0 | No Return Code | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 1 | Malformed echo request received | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not | [RFC8029] | + | | understood | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 3 | Replying router is an egress for the | [RFC8029] | + | | FEC at stack-depth <RSC> | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 4 | Replying router has no mapping for the | [RFC8029] | + | | FEC at stack-depth <RSC> | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 5 | Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See [1]) | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 6 | Upstream Interface Index Unknown (See | [RFC8029] | + | | [1]) | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 7 | Reserved | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 8 | Label switched at stack-depth <RSC> | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 9 | Label switched but no MPLS forwarding | [RFC8029] | + | | at stack-depth <RSC> | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 10 | Mapping for this FEC is not the given | [RFC8029] | + | | label at stack-depth <RSC> | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 11 | No label entry at stack-depth <RSC> | [RFC8029] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 12 | Protocol not associated with interface | [RFC8029] | + | | at FEC stack-depth <RSC> | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 13 | Premature termination of ping due to | [RFC8029] | + | | label stack shrinking to a single label | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 14 | See DDMAP TLV for meaning of Return | [RFC8029] | + | | 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 sent | [RFC7555] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 19 | Replying router has FEC mapping for | [RFC7555] | + | | topmost FEC | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 20 | One or more TLVs not returned due to | [RFC7743] | + | | MTU size | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 21 | OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 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 Timestamp | [RFC7759] | + | | Format | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 26 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 27 | OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 28 | OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 29 | OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 30 | OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 31 | OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 32 | OAM Problem/Fault management signaling | [RFC7759] | + | | unsupported | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 33 | OAM Problem/Unable to create fault | [RFC7759] | + | | management association | | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 34 | OAM Problem/PM Configuration Error | [RFC7759] | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 35 | Mapping for this FEC is not associated | [RFC8287], | + | | with the incoming interface | Section 7.4 | + +---------+-----------------------------------------+-------------+ + | 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 [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] registry + has 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] that are based on + them. + + The registration procedures have been changed, as follows, for the + "TLVs" registry. + + * 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 field in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) + Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" namespace + [IANA-LSP-PING]. + + * [RFC8611] was published after [RFC8126] 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 procedure. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a TLV is not + recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "TLVs" registry [IANA-TLV-reg] + after the changes listed above are shown in the table below: + + +=============+==============+=====================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+=====================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for TLVs that require | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range is | + | | Experimental | for TLVs that require an error | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for TLVs that can be | + | | Action | silently dropped if not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-------------------------------------+ + | 49162-64507 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can be | + | | | silently dropped if not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-------------------------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range is | + | | Experimental | for TLVs that can be silently | + | | Use | dropped if not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-------------------------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | FCFS | This range is for TLVs that can be | + | | | silently dropped if not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-------------------------------------+ + + Table 9: TLVs Registration Procedures + + The updated assignments for this registry appear as follows: + + Note that when a field in an assignment table says "EQ", it means + that there was no change from the existing field in the + "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) + Ping Parameters" namespace [IANA-LSP-PING]. + + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | 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 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | 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 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | 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 TLV Types 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] subregistry that are based on them. + + * The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + Required" has been removed. + + * The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has + been removed and replaced with "First Come First Served" + procedure. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required 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] subregistry appear as follows after the + changes listed above: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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 TLV Types + 1, 16, and 21 + + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-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 | PeerAdj SID | [draft- | TEMPORARY - | + | | Sub-TLV | ietf- | registered | + | | | mpls-sr- | 2021-05-11, expires | + | | | epe-oam- | 2022-05-11 | + | | | 03] | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 39 | PeerNode SID | [draft- | TEMPORARY - | + | | Sub-TLV | ietf- | registered | + | | | mpls-sr- | 2021-05-11, expires | + | | | epe-oam- | 2022-05-11 | + | | | 03] | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 40 | PeerSet SID | [draft- | TEMPORARY - | + | | Sub-TLV | ietf- | registered | + | | | mpls-sr- | 2021-05-11, expires | + | | | epe-oam- | 2022-05-11 | + | | | 03] | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 41-31739 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31740-31743 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that require | + | | | | an error message if | + | | | | not recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1 | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + + Table 12: Sub-TLV for TLVs 1, 16, and 21 Assignments + +6.2.3. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 + + This section describes the new registration procedures and the + assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] + subregistry that are based on them. + + * [RFC8611] was published after [RFC8126] 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 procedure. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a sub-TLV is + not recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" + [IANA-Sub-6] subregistry after the changes listed above are shown in + the table below: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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 TLV Type 6 + + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference | Comment | + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | 0 | Reserved | This | | + | | | document, | | + | | | [RFC8611] | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 1-2 | EQ | EQ | EQ | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 3-31739 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31740-31743 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that require | + | | | | an error message if | + | | | | not recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1 | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + + Table 14: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Assignments + +6.2.4. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11 + + This section describes the new registration procedures and the + assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" [IANA-Sub-11] + subregistry that are based on them. + + * The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + Required" has been removed. + + * The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has + been removed and replaced with "First Come First Served" code + points. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a sub-TLV is + not recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11" + [IANA-Sub-11] subregistry after the changes listed above are shown in + the table below: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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 TLV Type 11 + + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference | Comment | + +=============+==============+===========+=======================+ + | 0 | Reserved | This | | + | | | document | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 1-4 | EQ | EQ | EQ | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 5-31739 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31740-31743 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that require | + | | | | an error message if | + | | | | not recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1 | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for | + | | Use | | sub-TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+-----------------------+ + + Table 16: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11 Assignments + +6.2.5. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20 + + This section describes the new registration procedures and the + assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" [IANA-Sub-20] + subregistry that are based on them. + + * The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + Required" has been removed. + + * The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has + been removed and replaced with "First Come First Served" code + points. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a sub-TLV is + not recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20" + [IANA-Sub-20] subregistry after the changes listed above are shown in + the table below: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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 TLV Type 20 + + +=============+==============+===========+========================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference | Comment | + +=============+==============+===========+========================+ + | 0 | Reserved | This | | + | | | document | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 1-5 | EQ | EQ | EQ | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 6-31739 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 31740-31743 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that require an | + | | | | error message if not | + | | | | recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1] | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + + Table 18: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20 Assignments + +6.2.6. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23 + + This section describes the new registration procedures and the + assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" [IANA-Sub-23] + subregistry that are based on them. + + * The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + Required" has been removed. + + * The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has + been removed and replaced with "First Come First Served" code + points. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a sub-TLV is + not recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23" + [IANA-Sub-23] subregistry after the changes listed above are shown in + the table below: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that can be | + | | Use | 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 TLV Type 23 + + +=============+==============+===========+========================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference | Comment | + +=============+==============+===========+========================+ + | 0 | Reserved | [RFC7555] | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 1 | EQ | EQ | EQ | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 2-31739 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 31740-31743 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that require an | + | | | | error message if not | + | | | | recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1] | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + + Table 20: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23 Assignments + +6.2.7. Updates to the Registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27 + + This section describes the new registration procedures and the + assignments for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" [IANA-Sub-27] + subregistry that are based on them. + + * The "Specification Required" registration procedure has been + changed to "RFC Required", and the comment "Experimental RFC + Required" has been removed. + + * The code points registration procedure "Vendor Private Use" has + been removed and replaced with "First Come First Served" code + points. + + * Two small sets, four code points each, have been created for + Experimental Use. + + * Code points that are reserved are clearly marked as such. + + * The assignments have been updated to match the new registration + procedures. + + * The notes related to the registration procedures have been changed + to reflect whether or not a response is required if a sub-TLV is + not recognized. + + The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27" + [IANA-Sub-27] subregistry after the changes listed above are shown in + the table below: + + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | Range | Registration | Note | + | | Procedures | | + +=============+==============+==================================+ + | 0-16383 | Standards | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved for | Not to be assigned. This range | + | | Experimental | is for sub-TLVs that require an | + | | Use | 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 | This range is for sub-TLVs that | + | | Action | 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 | Reserved, not to be assigned. | + | | Use | 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 21: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27 + + +=============+==============+===========+========================+ + | Sub-Type | Sub-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 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that require an | + | | | | error message if not | + | | | | recognized. This | + | | | | document, Section 3.1] | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 31744-64507 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64508-64511 | Reserved for | This | Not to be assigned. | + | | Experimental | document | This range is for sub- | + | | Use | | TLVs that can be | + | | | | silently dropped if | + | | | | not recognized. | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + | 64512-65535 | Unassigned | | | + +-------------+--------------+-----------+------------------------+ + + Table 22: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27 Assignments + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [IANA-LSP-PING] + IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched + Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters>. + + [IANA-MT] IANA, "Message Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ + mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/>. + + [IANA-RC] IANA, "Return Codes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ + mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/>. + + [IANA-RM] IANA, "Reply Modes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ + mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-11] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-20] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-23] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-27] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-Sub-6] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [IANA-TLV-reg] + IANA, "TLVs", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp- + ping-parameters/>. + + [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>. + +7.2. Informative References + + [IANA-Sub-9] + IANA, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [lsp-ping-Namespace] + IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched + Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- + parameters/>. + + [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>. + +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 thank Donald Eastlake 3rd and Tom Petch for their careful + and detailed review. + +Authors' Addresses + + Loa Andersson + Bronze Dragon Consulting + + Email: loa@pi.nu + + + Mach(Guoyi) Chen + Huawei Technologies + + Email: mach.chen@huawei.com + + + Carlos Pignataro + Cisco Systems + + Email: cpignata@cisco.com + + + Tarek Saad + Juniper Networks + + Email: tsaad@juniper.net |