Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 9041

Updating the MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters IANA Registry

Pages: ~31
IETF/rtg/mpls/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-11
Proposed Standard
Updates:  80298611

Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041
L. Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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 [RFC 8029] than in other RFCs. For example, [RFC 8029] 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.
[RFC 8029] contains updates to the "[Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters]" IANA namespace [IANA-LSP-PING].
[RFC 8611] created LSP Ping IANA registries that match [RFC 8126]. This document further clarifies the entries in those registries and makes the definitions more precise.
This document updates [RFC 8029] and [RFC 8611] 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:
It should be noted that [RFC 8029] was published before [RFC 8126] and uses outdated terminology for some registration procedures, e.g., "Vendor Private Use". [RFC 8611] was published after [RFC 8126] 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 [RFC 8029], 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, [RFC 8029] uses these words to indicate that an action might or might not be mandatory. This document updates [RFC 8029] 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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] 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
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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 [RFC 8126].

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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require 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 Action This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that can be 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 tothe table of registration procedures.
  • Two small sets of code points (four code points each) for Experimental Use have beencreated. The first set is for the range that requires a response if the TLV orsub-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" [RFC 8029].
  • The registration procedure "Specification Required" has been changed to "RFCRequired", 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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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]" [RFC 8611].
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 RFC 8029, "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]" [RFC 8611] 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 RFC 8611 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 2: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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:
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 [RFC 8029]
2 MPLS Echo Reply [RFC 8029]
3 MPLS Proxy Ping Request [RFC 7555]
4 MPLS Proxy Ping Reply [RFC 7555]
5 MPLS Relayed Echo Reply [RFC 7743]
6-247 Unassigned
248-251 Reserved for Experimental Use This document
252-255 Reserved for Private Use [RFC 8029]
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 [RFC 8029]
2 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet [RFC 8029]
3 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert [RFC 8029]
4 Reply via application-level control channel [RFC 8029]
5 Reply via Specified Path [RFC 7110]
6-247 Unassigned
248-251 Reserved for Experimental Use This document
252-255 Reserved for Private Use [RFC 8029]
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 [RFC 8029]
1 Malformed echo request received [RFC 8029]
2 One or more of the TLVs was not understood [RFC 8029]
3 Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
4 Replying router has no mapping for the FEC at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
5 Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See [1]) [RFC 8029]
6 Upstream Interface Index Unknown (See [1]) [RFC 8029]
7 Reserved [RFC 8029]
8 Label switched at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
9 Label switched but no MPLS forwarding at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
10 Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
11 No label entry at stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
12 Protocol not associated with interface at FEC stack-depth <RSC> [RFC 8029]
13 Premature termination of ping due to label stack shrinking to a single label [RFC 8029]
14 See DDMAP TLV for meaning of Return Code and Return Subcode (See [2]) [RFC 8029]
15 Label switched with FEC change [RFC 8029]
16 Proxy Ping not authorized [RFC 7555]
17 Proxy Ping parameters need to be modified [RFC 7555]
18 MPLS Echo Request could not be sent [RFC 7555]
19 Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost FEC [RFC 7555]
20 One or more TLVs not returned due to MTU size [RFC 7743]
21 OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version [RFC 7759]
22 OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Encapsulation format [RFC 7759]
23 OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Authentication Type [RFC 7759]
24 OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD Authentication Key ID [RFC 7759]
25 OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp Format [RFC 7759]
26 OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode [RFC 7759]
27 OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode [RFC 7759]
28 OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported [RFC 7759]
29 OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported [RFC 7759]
30 OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported [RFC 7759]
31 OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported [RFC 7759]
32 OAM Problem/Fault management signaling unsupported [RFC 7759]
33 OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association [RFC 7759]
34 OAM Problem/PM Configuration Error [RFC 7759]
35 Mapping for this FEC is not associated with the incoming interface RFC 8287, Section 7.4
36-247 Unassigned
248-251 Reserved for Experimental Use This document
252-255 Reserved for Private Use [RFC 8029]
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 RFC 8029.

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].
  • [RFC 8611] was published after [RFC 8126] 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for TLVs that require 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for TLVs that require an error 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 Action This range is for TLVs that can be 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for TLVs that can be silently 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 Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for 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 Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 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 Sub-TLV [draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-03] TEMPORARY - registered 2021-05-11, expires 2022-05-11
39 PeerNode SID Sub-TLV [draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-03] TEMPORARY - registered 2021-05-11, expires 2022-05-11
40 PeerSet SID Sub-TLV [draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-03] TEMPORARY - registered 2021-05-11, expires 2022-05-11
41-31739 Unassigned
31740-31743 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for 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.
  • [RFC 8611] was published after [RFC 8126] 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 13: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference Comment
0 Reserved This document, [RFC 8611]
1-2 EQ EQ EQ
3-31739 Unassigned
31740-31743 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 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 Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for 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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 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 Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1]
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. 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 19: Registration Procedures for Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference Comment
0 Reserved [RFC 7555]
1 EQ EQ EQ
2-31739 Unassigned
31740-31743 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1]
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-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 Procedures Note
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Experimental Use Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an 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 Action This range is for sub-TLVs that 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 Use Reserved, not to be assigned. 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 [RFC 7759]
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 Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that require an error message if not recognized. This document, Section 3.1]
31744-64507 Unassigned
64508-64511 Reserved for Experimental Use This document Not to be assigned. This range is for sub-TLVs that can be silently dropped if not recognized.
64512-65535 Unassigned
Table 22: Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27 Assignments
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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]
S. Bradner, "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]
K. Kompella, G. Swallow, C. Pignataro, N. Kumar, S. Aldrin, 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]
M. Cotton, B. Leiba, 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]
B. Leiba, "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]
N. Akiya, G. Swallow, S. Litkowski, B. Decraene, J. Drake, 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]
M. Chen, W. Cao, S. Ning, F. Jounay, 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]
G. Swallow, V. Lim, and S. Aldrin, "Proxy MPLS Echo Request", RFC 7555, DOI 10.17487/RFC7555, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7555>.
[RFC7743]
J. Luo, L. Jin, T. Nadeau, and G. Swallow, "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]
E. Bellagamba, G. Mirsky, L. Andersson, P. Skoldstrom, D. Ward, 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]
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, G. Swallow, N. Akiya, S. Kini, 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>.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

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.
Top   ToC   RFCv3-9041

Authors' Addresses

Loa Andersson

Bronze Dragon Consulting
Email: loa@pi.nu

Mach(Guoyi) Chen

Huawei Technologies

Carlos Pignataro

Cisco Systems

Tarek Saad

Juniper Networks
Top   ToC