1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
|
Network Working Group A. Farrel
Request for Comments: 4859 Old Dog Consulting
Category: Informational April 2007
Codepoint Registry for the Flags Field in
the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Session Attribute Object
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new
codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute
object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling.
1. Introduction
The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] has been extended
as RSVP for Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for use in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) signaling [RFC3209] and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) [RFC3473].
[RFC3209] introduced a new signaling object, the Session Attribute
object, that is carried on the RSVP Path message. The Session
Attribute object contains an eight-bit field of flags.
The original specification of RSVP-TE assigned uses to three of these
bit flags. Subsequent MPLS and GMPLS RFCs have assigned further
flags.
There is a need for a codepoint registry to track the use of the bit
flags in this field, to ensure that bits are not assigned more than
once, and to define the procedures by which such bits may be
assigned.
Farrel Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4859 Registry for RSVP-TE Session Flags April 2007
This document lists the current bit usage and provides information
for IANA to create a new registry. This document does not define the
uses of specific bits -- definitive procedures for the use of the
bits can be found in the referenced RFCs.
2. Existing Usage
2.1. RFC 3209
[RFC3209] defines the use of three bits as follows:
0x01 Local protection desired
0x02 Label recording desired
0x04 SE Style desired
2.2. RFC 4090
[RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows:
0x08 Bandwidth protection desired
0x10 Node protection desired
2.3. RFC 4736
[RFC4736] defines the use of one bit as follows:
0x20 Path re-evaluation request
3. Security Considerations
This informational document exists purely to create an IANA registry.
Such registries help to protect the IETF process against denial-of-
service attacks.
Otherwise there are no security considerations for this document.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA has created a new codepoint registry as follows.
The new registry has been placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters"
branch of the tree.
The new registry has been termed "Session Attribute Object Flags."
Farrel Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4859 Registry for RSVP-TE Session Flags April 2007
Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus
[RFC2434].
The registry references the flags already defined as described in
Section 2 of this document.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner, and Thomas Narten for reviewing
this document.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version
1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.
Farrel Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4859 Registry for RSVP-TE Session Flags April 2007
Author's Address
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Farrel Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4859 Registry for RSVP-TE Session Flags April 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Farrel Informational [Page 5]
^L
|
