summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt507
1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9d266b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6328.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
+Request for Comments: 6328 Huawei
+BCP: 164 July 2011
+Category: Best Current Practice
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers
+
+Abstract
+
+ Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
+ the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /
+ International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol
+ Identifier (NLPID). This document provides NLPID IANA
+ considerations.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
+
+ 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
+ BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6328.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2011 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
+ (http://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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 2. NLPIDs ..........................................................3
+ 2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID ....................................3
+ 2.2. Code Point 0x80 ............................................4
+ 2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation .......................4
+ 3. IANA Considerations .............................................5
+ 4. Security Considerations .........................................5
+ 5. References ......................................................5
+ 5.1. Normative References .......................................5
+ 5.2. Informative References .....................................6
+ 6. Acknowledgements ................................................7
+ Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page ............................8
+ Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID ................................9
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
+ the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /
+ International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol
+ Identifier (NLPID).
+
+ The term "NLPID" is not actually used in [ISO9577], which refers to
+ one-octet IPIs (Initial Protocol Identifiers) and SPIs (Subsequent
+ Protocol Identifiers). While these are two logically separate kinds
+ of one-octet identifiers, most values are usable as both an IPI and
+ an SPI. In the remainder of this document, the term NLPID is used
+ for such values.
+
+ The registry of NLPID values is maintained by ISO/IEC by updating
+ [ISO9577]. The procedure specified by ISO/IEC in that document is
+ that an NLPID code point can be allocated without approval by
+ ISO/IEC, as long as the code point is not in a range of values
+ categorized for an organization other than the organization
+ allocating the code point and as long as ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is
+ informed.
+
+ This document provides NLPID IANA considerations. That is, it
+ specifies the level of IETF approval necessary for a code point to be
+ allocated for IETF use, the procedures to be used and actions to be
+ taken by IANA in connection with NLPIDs, and related guidelines.
+
+ [RFC5226] is incorporated herein except to the extent that there are
+ contrary provisions in this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+2. NLPIDs
+
+ [ISO9577] defines one-octet network layer protocol identifiers that
+ are commonly called NLPIDs, which is the term used in this document.
+
+ NLPIDs are used in a number of protocols. For example, in the
+ mar$pro.type field of the multicast address resolution server
+ protocol [RFC2022], the ar$pro.type field of the NBMA (Non-Broadcast
+ Multi-Access) next hop resolution protocol [RFC2332] and in the IS-IS
+ Protocols Supported TLV [RFC1195]. See Appendix B.
+
+2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID
+
+ Sub-ranges of the possible NLPID values are categorized by [ISO9577]
+ for organizations as shown below, primarily for the ISO/IEC
+ (International Organization for Standardization / International
+ Electrotechnical Commission) and the ITU-T (International
+ Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector):
+
+ Code Point Category
+ ---------- --------
+ 0x00 ISO/IEC
+ 0x01-0x0F ITU-T
+ 0x10-0x3F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
+ 0x40-0x43 ISO/IEC
+ 0x44 ITU-T
+ 0x45-0x4F ISO/IEC
+ 0x50-0x6F ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
+ 0x70-0x7F Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
+ 0x80 ISO/IEC (see Section 2.2)
+ 0x81-0x8F ISO/IEC
+ 0x90-0xAF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
+ 0xB0-0xBF ITU-T
+ 0xC0-0xCF Potentially available for IANA (see Section 2.3)
+ 0xD0-0xEF ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
+ 0xF0-0xFE Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
+ 0xFF Reserved for an Extension mechanism to be
+ jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 3]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+2.2. Code Point 0x80
+
+ NLPID 0x80 is known as the IEEE (Institute of Electrical &
+ Electronics Engineers) SNAP (SubNetwork Access Protocol) code point.
+ It is followed by five octets, using the IEEE SNAP SAP (Service
+ Access Point) conventions, to specify the protocol. Those
+ conventions are described in Section 3 of [RFC5342]. In particular,
+ it is valid for such a five-octet sequence to start with the IANA OUI
+ (Organizationally Unique Identifier) followed by two further octets
+ assigned by IANA as provided in [RFC5342]. The same IANA registry is
+ used for such protocol identifiers whether they are planned to be
+ introduced by the 0x80 NLPID or the IEEE SNAP SAP LSAPs (Link-Layer
+ Service Access Points) (0xAAAA). Values allocated by IANA may be
+ used in either context as appropriate.
+
+ Because of the limited number of NLPID code points available for IANA
+ allocation, use of the IEEE SNAP NLPID is RECOMMENDED rather than
+ allocation of a new one-octet NLPID code point.
+
+2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation
+
+ A limited number of code points are available that could be allocated
+ by IANA under [ISO9577]. Because of this, it is desirable, where
+ practical, to use code point 0x80, as discussed in Section 2.2 above,
+ or to get code points allocated from the ranges categorized to other
+ organizations. For example, code point 0x8E was allocated for IPv6
+ [RFC2460], although it is in a range of code points categorized for
+ ISO/IEC. One-byte code points are assigned to TRILL and IEEE 802.1aq
+ as they are intended for use within the IS-IS Protocols Supported TLV
+ [RFC1195].
+
+ The table below, which includes two new code point allocations made
+ by this document, shows those still available.
+
+ Code Point Status
+ ---------- --------
+ 0xC0 TRILL [RFC6325]
+ 0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
+ 0xC2-0xCB Available
+ 0xCC IPv4 [RFC791]
+ 0xCD-0xCE Available
+ 0xCF PPP [RFC1661]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 4]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+3. IANA Considerations
+
+ As long as code points are available, IANA will allocate additional
+ values when required by applying the IETF Review policy as per
+ [RFC5226].
+
+ Whenever it allocates an NLPID, IANA will inform the IETF liaison to
+ ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee 6)
+ [JTC1SC6], or if IANA is unable to determine that IETF liaison, the
+ IAB. The liaison (or the IAB) will then ensure that ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6
+ is informed so that [ISO9577] can be updated since ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6
+ is the body that maintains [ISO9577]. To simplify this process, it
+ is desirable that the IAB maintain an IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1
+ SC6.
+
+ This document allocates the code points 0xC0 and 0xC1 as shown in
+ Section 2.3 and IANA shall request the liaison (or the IAB) to so
+ inform ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6.
+
+ IANA maintains a web page showing NLPIDs that have been allocated to
+ a protocol being developed or extended by the IETF or are otherwise
+ of interest. The initial state of the web page is as shown in
+ Appendix A. IANA will update this web page for (1) NLPIDs allocated
+ by IANA and (2) other allocations or de-allocations when IANA is
+ requested to make such changes to this web page by the IETF liaison
+ mentioned above.
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+ This document is concerned with allocation of NLPIDs. It is not
+ directly concerned with security.
+
+5. References
+
+5.1. Normative References
+
+ [ISO9577] International Organization for Standardization "Information
+ technology - Telecommunications and Information exchange
+ between systems - Protocol identification in the network
+ layer", ISO/IEC TR 9577:1999, 1999-12-15.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+ IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
+ 2008.
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 5]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+ [RFC5342] Eastlake 3rd., D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
+ Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342,
+ September 2008.
+
+ [RFC6325] Radia, P., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
+ Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", RFC
+ 6325, July 2011.
+
+5.2. Informative References
+
+ [802.1aq] Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual
+ Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9: Shortest Path
+ Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D2.1, 21 August 2009.
+
+ [JTC1SC6] ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (International Organization for
+ Standardization / International Electrotechnical
+ Commission, Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee
+ 6), http://www.iso.org/iso/
+ iso_technical_committee.html?commid=45072
+
+ [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
+ 1981.
+
+ [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
+ dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
+
+ [RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
+ 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
+
+ [RFC1707] McGovern, M. and R. Ullmann, "CATNIP: Common Architecture
+ for the Internet", RFC 1707, October 1994.
+
+ [RFC2022] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based
+ ATM Networks", RFC 2022, November 1996.
+
+ [RFC2332] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., and N.
+ Doraswamy, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC
+ 2332, April 1998.
+
+ [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
+ (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 6]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ The contributions and support of the following people, listed in
+ alphabetic order, are gratefully acknowledged:
+
+ Ayan Banerjee, Gonzalo Camarillo, Dinesh Dutt, Don Fedyk, Alfred
+ Hines, Russ Housley, Andrew Malis, Radia Perlman, Dan Romascanu,
+ and Peter Ashwood-Smith.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 7]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page
+
+ NLPIDs of Interest
+
+ Code Point Use
+ ---------- --------
+ 0x00 Null
+ 0x08 Q.933 (RFC 2427)
+ 0x80 IEEE SNAP (RFC 6328)
+ 0x81 ISO CLNP (Connectionless Network Protocol)
+ 0x82 ISO ES-IS
+ 0x83 IS-IS (RFC 1195)
+ 0x8E IPv6 (RFC 2460)
+ 0xB0 FRF.9 (RFC 2427)
+ 0xB1 FRF.12 (RF C2427)
+ 0xC0 TRILL (RFC 6325)
+ 0xC1 IEEE 802.1aq
+ 0xCC IPv4 (RFC 791)
+ 0xCF PPP (RFC 1661)
+
+ Note: According to [RFC1707], NLPID 0x70 was assigned to IPv7. That
+ assignment appears to no longer be in effect as it is not listed in
+ ISO/IEC 9577. IPv7 was itself a temporary code point assignment made
+ while a decision was being made between three candidates for the next
+ generation of IP after IPv4. Those candidates were assigned IPv6,
+ IPv7, and IPv8. IPv6 was selected.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 8]
+
+RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011
+
+
+Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID
+
+ The following RFCs, issued before the end of March 2009, excluding
+ other survey RFCs and obsolete RFCs, reference the NLPID as such:
+
+ RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
+ Environments
+ RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
+ Mode
+ RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
+ RFC 1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
+ RFC 1707 CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet
+ RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
+ RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks
+ RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
+ RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
+ Mode PIM
+ RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI
+ RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
+ RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
+ RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
+ Specification
+ RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
+ RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and
+ Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking
+ Function
+ RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay
+ RFC 5308 Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
+ Huawei Technologies
+ 155 Beaver Street
+ Milford, MA 01757 USA
+
+ Phone: +1-508-333-2270
+ EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 9]
+