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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 7319 Huawei
BCP: 191 July 2014
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
IANA Considerations for Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) Code Points
Abstract
IEEE 802.1 has specified Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) facilities. CFM
messages are structured with an OpCode field and have provision for
the inclusion of TLV-structured information. IEEE 802.1 has
allocated blocks of CFM OpCodes and TLV Types to the IETF. This
document specifies the IANA considerations for the assignment of
values from these blocks.
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/rfc7319.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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]
^L
RFC 7319 IANA Considerations for CFM Code Points July 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................2
2. IANA Considerations .............................................2
3. Security Considerations .........................................3
4. References ......................................................3
4.1. Normative References .......................................3
4.2. Informative References .....................................3
Appendix A. IEEE 802.1 WG Liaison .................................6
1. Introduction
The IEEE 802.1 Working Group has specified Connectivity Fault
Management (CFM) [802.1Q] OAM [RFC6291] facilities. CFM messages are
structured with an OpCode field and have provision for the inclusion
of TLV-structured information.
IEEE 802.1 has allocated the block of 32 CFM OpCodes from 64 through
95 and the block of 32 CFM TLV Types from 64 through 95 to the IETF
(see Appendix A). This document specifies the IANA considerations
for the assignment of values from these two blocks.
IEEE 802.1 previously allocated similar blocks of values from 32
through 63 to ITU-T [Y.1731].
1.1. Terminology
Capitalized IANA terms such as "Standards Action" are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC5226].
2. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) OAM IETF
Parameters" registry with the following two subregistries:
Registry Name: CFM OAM IETF OpCodes
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Reference: [802.1Q] [RFC7319]
Note: This parameter originates with the IEEE 802.1 Working Group
that has allocated the block of values from 64 to 95 to the IETF.
Value Assignment
===== ==========
64-95 Unassigned
Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7319 IANA Considerations for CFM Code Points July 2014
Registry Name: CFM OAM IETF TLV Types
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Reference: [802.1Q] [RFC7319]
Note: This parameter originates with the IEEE 802.1 Working Group
that has allocated the block of values from 64 to 95 to the IETF.
Value Assignment
===== ==========
64-95 Unassigned
3. Security Considerations
This document is concerned with assignment of values from the blocks
of IEEE 802.1 CFM OpCodes and TLV Types that the IEEE 802.1 Working
Group has allocated to the IETF. It is not directly concerned with
security.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[802.1Q] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q, 2011.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu, D.,
and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291, June 2011.
[Y.1731] ITU-T, "OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet-based
Networks", Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November 2013.
Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7319 IANA Considerations for CFM Code Points July 2014
Appendix A. IEEE 802.1 WG Liaison
To: Jari Arkko, IETF chair
cc: Stephen J. Trowbridge, ITU-T SG15 chair,
Donald Eastlake, Erik Nordmark, IETF TRILL WG,
Eric Gray, IETF/IEEE liaison
From: Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair
Date: Thursday, 06 March 2014
Reference: 24 September 2013 Liaison from TRILL WG
After considering the referenced liaison from the TRILL WG, IEEE
802.1 has voted to approve the allocation of code points from the
Connectivity Fault Management protocol of IEEE Std 802.1Q(TM)-2011
for use by IETF. The expectation of IEEE 802.1 is that these code
points will be allocated through IANA only on the basis of IETF
standards actions. Specifically, the allocation includes:
+ 32 CFM OpCode Field values. Reference IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011
Clause 21.4.3, Table 21-4. The OpCode Field values 64-95
10
are allocated to the IETF.
+ 32 TLV Type Field values. Reference IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011
Clause 21.5.1.1, Table 21-6. The Type Field values 64-95
10
are allocated to the IETF.
IEEE Std 802.1Q will be revised at some future date to document
this allocation. In the meantime, the allocation will be recorded
through the IEEE 802.1 maintenance process.
Regards,
Tony Jeffree
IEEE 802.1 Working Group Chair
Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7319 IANA Considerations for CFM Code Points July 2014
Author's Address
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 5]
^L
|
