[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mpls-i...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

INFORMATIONAL

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/