draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-09.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-10.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 21 skipping to change at page 1, line 21
Andre Fredette Andre Fredette
Nortel Networks Inc. Nortel Networks Inc.
Bob Thomas Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
August 2000 August 2000
LDP Specification LDP Specification
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-09.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-10.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
3.7 Message Summary .................................... 84 3.7 Message Summary .................................... 84
3.8 TLV Summary ........................................ 85 3.8 TLV Summary ........................................ 85
3.9 Status Code Summary ................................ 86 3.9 Status Code Summary ................................ 86
3.10 Well-known Numbers ................................. 87 3.10 Well-known Numbers ................................. 87
3.10.1 UDP and TCP Ports .................................. 87 3.10.1 UDP and TCP Ports .................................. 87
3.10.2 Implicit NULL Label ................................ 87 3.10.2 Implicit NULL Label ................................ 87
4 IANA Considerations ................................ 87 4 IANA Considerations ................................ 87
4.1 Message Type Name Space ............................ 88 4.1 Message Type Name Space ............................ 88
4.2 TLV Type Name Space ................................ 88 4.2 TLV Type Name Space ................................ 88
4.3 FEC Type Name Space ................................ 89 4.3 FEC Type Name Space ................................ 89
4.4 Status Code Space .................................. 89 4.4 Status Code Name Space ............................. 89
4.5 Experiment ID Name Space ........................... 89 4.5 Experiment ID Name Space ........................... 89
5 Security Considerations ............................ 89 5 Security Considerations ............................ 89
5.1 Spoofing ........................................... 89 5.1 Spoofing ........................................... 89
5.2 Privacy ............................................ 90 5.2 Privacy ............................................ 90
5.3 Denial of Service .................................. 91 5.3 Denial of Service .................................. 91
6 Areas for Future Study ............................. 92 6 Areas for Future Study ............................. 92
7 Intellectual Property Considerations ............... 93 7 Intellectual Property Considerations ............... 93
8 Acknowledgments .................................... 93 8 Acknowledgments .................................... 93
9 References ......................................... 93 9 References ......................................... 93
10 Author Information ................................. 95 10 Author Information ................................. 95
skipping to change at page 87, line 32 skipping to change at page 87, line 32
3.10.2. Implicit NULL Label 3.10.2. Implicit NULL Label
The Implicit NULL label (see [ARCH]) is represented as a Generic The Implicit NULL label (see [ARCH]) is represented as a Generic
Label TLV with a Label field value as specified by [ENCAP]. Label TLV with a Label field value as specified by [ENCAP].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
LDP defines the following name spaces which require management: LDP defines the following name spaces which require management:
- Message types. - Message Type Name Space.
- TLV types. - TLV Type Name Space.
- FEC types. - FEC Type Name Space.
- Status codes. - Status Code Name Space.
- Experiment Ids. - Experiment ID Name Space.
The following sections provide guidelines for managing these name The following sections provide guidelines for managing these name
spaces. spaces.
4.1. Message Type Name Space 4.1. Message Type Name Space
LDP divides the name space for message types into three ranges. The LDP divides the name space for message types into three ranges. The
following are the guidelines for managing these ranges: following are the guidelines for managing these ranges:
- Message Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF. Message types in this range are - Message Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF. Message types in this range are
part of the LDP base protocol. Following the policies outlined part of the LDP base protocol. Following the policies outlined
in [IANA], Message types in this range are allocated through an in [IANA], Message types in this range are allocated through an
IETF Consensus action. IETF Consensus action.
- Message Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF. Message types in this range are - Message Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF. Message types in this range are
reserved for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibility reserved for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibility
of the individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private of the individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private
Messages"). Messages"). IANA management of this range of the Message Type
Name Space is unnecessary.
- Message Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF. Message types in this range are - Message Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF. Message types in this range are
reserved for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility reserved for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility
of the individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental of the individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental
Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space"). Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space"). IANA management of
this range of the Message Type Name Space is unnecessary;
however, IANA is responsible for managing part of the Experiment
ID Name Space (see below).
4.2. TLV Type Name Space 4.2. TLV Type Name Space
LDP divides the name space for TLV types into three ranges. The LDP divides the name space for TLV types into three ranges. The
following are the guidelines for managing these ranges: following are the guidelines for managing these ranges:
- TLV Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF. TLV types in this range are part of - TLV Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF. TLV types in this range are part of
the LDP base protocol. Following the policies outlined in the LDP base protocol. Following the policies outlined in
[IANA], TLV types in this range are allocated through an IETF [IANA], TLV types in this range are allocated through an IETF
Consensus action. Consensus action.
- TLV Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF. TLV types in this range are reserved - TLV Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF. TLV types in this range are reserved
for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibility of the for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibility of the
individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private TLVs"). individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private TLVs"). IANA
management of this range of the TLV Type Name Space is
unnecessary.
- TLV Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF. TLV types in this range are reserved - TLV Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF. TLV types in this range are reserved
for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility of the for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility of the
individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental
Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space"). Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space"). IANA management of
this range of the TLV Name Space is unnecessary; however, IANA is
responsible for managing part of the Experiment ID Name Space
(see below).
4.3. FEC Type Name Space 4.3. FEC Type Name Space
The range for FEC types is 0 - 255. The range for FEC types is 0 - 255.
Following the policies outlined in [IANA], FEC types in the range 0 - Following the policies outlined in [IANA], FEC types in the range 0 -
127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, types in the 127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, types in the
range 128 - 191 are allocated as First Come First Served, and types range 128 - 191 are allocated as First Come First Served, and types
in the range 192 - 255 are reserved for Private Use. in the range 192 - 255 are reserved for Private Use.
4.4. Status Code Space 4.4. Status Code Name Space
The range for Status Codes is 0x00000000 - 0x3FFFFFFF. The range for Status Codes is 0x00000000 - 0x3FFFFFFF.
Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Status Codes in the range Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Status Codes in the range
0x00000000 - 0x1FFFFFFF are allocated through an IETF Consensus 0x00000000 - 0x1FFFFFFF are allocated through an IETF Consensus
action, codes in the range 0x20000000 - 0x3EFFFFFF are allocated as action, codes in the range 0x20000000 - 0x3EFFFFFF are allocated as
First Come First Served, and codes in the range 0x3F000000 - First Come First Served, and codes in the range 0x3F000000 -
0x3FFFFFFF are reserved for Private Use. 0x3FFFFFFF are reserved for Private Use.
4.5. Experiment ID Name Space 4.5. Experiment ID Name Space
The range for Experiment Ids is 0x00000000 - 0xffffffff. The range for Experiment Ids is 0x00000000 - 0xffffffff.
Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Experiment Ids in the Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Experiment Ids in the
range 0x00000000 - 0xefffffff are allocated as First Come First range 0x00000000 - 0xefffffff are allocated as First Come First
Served and Experiment Ids in the range 0xf0000000 are reserved for Served and Experiment Ids in the range 0xf0000000 - 0xffffffff are
Private Use. reserved for Private Use.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This section identifies threats to which LDP may be vulnerable and This section identifies threats to which LDP may be vulnerable and
discusses means by which those threats might be mitigated. discusses means by which those threats might be mitigated.
5.1. Spoofing 5.1. Spoofing
There are two types of LDP communication that could be the target of There are two types of LDP communication that could be the target of
a spoofing attack. a spoofing attack.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/