[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags) 00 01 RFC 4859

Network Working Group                                      Adrian Farrel
Internet Draft                                        Old Dog Consulting
Category: Informational
Expiration Date: August 2007                               February 2007



   Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation
     Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object


             draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

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 Engineeging
   (RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling.






A. Farrel                                                       [Page 1]

draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt             February 2007

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.

   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


A. Farrel                                                       [Page 2]

draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt             February 2007

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 is requested to create a new codepoint registry as follows.

   The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters"
   branch of the tree.

   The new registry should be termed "Session Attribute Object Flags."

   Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus
   [RFC2434].

   The registry should reference 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., 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., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
                 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
                 RFC 3473, January 2003.


A. Farrel                                                       [Page 3]

draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt             February 2007

6.2 Informative References

   [RFC4090]     Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute
                 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
                 May 2005.

   [RFC4736]     Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R.,
                 "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
                 Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
                 Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.

7. Author's Address

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

8. Intellectual Property Consideration

   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.

9. 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.


A. Farrel                                                       [Page 4]

draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt             February 2007

   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.












































A. Farrel                                                       [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/