MPLS Working Group L. Andersson Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) T. Saad Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks Expires: January 8, 2020 July 7, 2019 Updating the LSP Ping IANA registries draft-andersson-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-00 Abstract This document updates some registries in the LSP Ping IANA name space. The updates are mostly for clarification and to align this registry with recent developments. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix B. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs 9 Appendix C. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] where published it contained among other things updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING]. The LSP Ping IANA registries were partly updated to match RFC 8029, but the there were some ambiguity in the RFC, that were reflected in the registries. This document updates two groups of registries. First the registries for Message Types [MessTypes], Reply Modes [re-Mode] and Return Codes [return-codes]. The changes to these registries are minor. Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries. o TLVs [tlv-reg] o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [sub-1-16-21] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 [sub-6] Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [sub-11] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [sub-20] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [sub-23] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [sub-27] The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [sub-9] is not updated. 1.1. Requirement Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and Return Codes [MessTypes] registries. o a small set of code points (4 code points) for experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use". o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Specific Use" is changed to "Private use" o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration procedures o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" o In the list that capture nment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are clearly marked. * In the Return Codes [return-codes] registry the code point "0" already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this registry will not havethe "0" value "Reserved". The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for these registries will be found in Appendix A. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries When a new LSP Ping sub-TLV registry were created by RFC 8611 [RFC8611] this registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [sub-6] was set up following the intentions of RFC 8029. The registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" will serve as a model to change/update the rest of the TLV and sub-TLV registries in this name space. The registration procedures in the current registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" looks like this (2019-06-20). This will be used as a base-line and some additions/changes will be made as captured in the Appendixes: +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory | | | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory | | | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 31744-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs | | | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | not recognized. | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs | | | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | not recognized. | | 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures This document adds small ranges of code points for Experimental Use to this registry and to registries listed in Appendix B. All registries will be changed to reflect the same model. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub- TLV IANA registries o all mandatory TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not recognized o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not recognized o some optional TLVs and sub-TLVs may be silently dropped if the are not recognized The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into to blocks, one with a range from 0 to 49161 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require a response if not recognized. Another block in the range from 49161 to 65535, this block is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently dropped if not recognized. Each of the blocks have code point spaces with the following registration procedures: o Standards Action o RFC Required o Experimental Use o Private Use The exact defintion of registration procedures for IANA registries are found in [RFC8126] IETF does not prescribe how the Experimental Use and Private Use sub- TLVs are handled; however, if a packet containing a sub-TLV from the Experimental Use or Private Use ranges is received by an LSR that does not recognize the sub-TLV, an error message MAY be returned if the sub-TLV is from the range 31744-32767, and the packet SHOULD be silently dropped if it is from the range 64512-65535. 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries This section lists the changes to each LSP Ping Registry, in appendixes it is shown what the IANA registry version of the registration procedures and assignments would look like. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries. o two small set of code points (2 times 4 code points) for experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use". o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed o In the listing of assignements the term "Vendor Specific Use" is changed to "Private use" o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is added o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration procedures o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use" o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly marked. The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments for these registries will be found in Appendix B and Appendix C. 4. Security Considerations TBA 5. IANA Considerations There are no requests for IANA actions in this document. This is obviously not true, the entire document is an IANA Consideration section,but we need some help how to write the IANA section in this type of document. Maybe we could just say, IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in this document. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 6. Acknowledgements TBA 7. References 7.1. Normative References [IANA-LSP-PING] "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", . [MessTypes] "Message Types", . [re-Mode] "Message Types", . [return-codes] "Return Codes", . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 [sub-1-16-21] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21", . [sub-11] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11", . [sub-20] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20", . [sub-23] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23", . [sub-27] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27", . [sub-6] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6", . [tlv-reg] "TLVs", . 7.2. Informative References [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, . [sub-9] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9", . Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 Appendix A. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries This appendix defines the updated registration procedures for Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries. +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 0-191 | Standards Action | | | 192-247 | RFC Required | | | 248-251 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 252-255 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ New common registration procedures +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ | Value | Meaning | Reference | +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1-247 | No changes to the existing | | | | assignments | | | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] | +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ Common Assignments for the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Code registries Note that for the Return Code registry the assignment for code point zero has been previously assigned, it is not changed but will remain: +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ | Value | Meaning | Reference | +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ | 0 | No return code | [RFC8029] | +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ Assignment for code point 0 in the Return Code registry Appendix B. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs This appendix describes the new registration procedures for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([sub-9] is not changed. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory | | | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory | | | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 37144-37147 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 31748-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs | | | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | not recognized. | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs | | | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | not recognized. | | 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures Appendix C. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs The two tables in this appendix describes the updated IANA assignments for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([sub-9] is not changed. Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 10] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ | Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV | | | | | registry | +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | | 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to | [any] | | | | the current | | | | | registry | | | 37144-37147 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Experimental Use | | | | 31748-32767 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Private Use | | | | 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to | [any] | | | | the current | | | | | registry. | | | 64512-64515 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Experimental Use | | | | 64515-65535 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Private Use | | | +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ TLV Assignments Updated Sub-TLV assignments +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | Type | TLV name | Reference | +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to the | | | | current registry | | 37144-37147 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 31748-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | | 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to the | | | | current registry. | | 64512-64515 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 64515-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ Sub-TLV Assignments Authors' Addresses Loa Andersson Bronze Dragon Consulting Email: loa@pi.nu Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 11] Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries July 2019 Tarek Saad Juniper Networks Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com Andersson & Saad Expires January 8, 2020 [Page 12]