Network Working Group L. Martini

Network Working Group L. Martini
Request for Comments: 4446 Cisco Systems Inc.
BCP: 116 April 2006
Category: Best Current Practice

IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)

Status of This Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

This document allocates the fixed pseudowire identifier and other
fixed protocol values for protocols that have been defined in the
Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge (PWE3) working group. Detailed IANA
allocation instructions are also included in this document.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Specification of Requirements ...................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
3.1. Expert Review Directives ...................................2
3.2. MPLS Pseudowire Type .......................................3
3.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type ..........................4
3.4. Attachment Identifiers .....................................5
3.4.1. Attachment Individual Identifier Type ...............5
3.4.2. Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type ..............5
3.5. Pseudowire Status ..........................................6
3.6. PW Associated Channel Type .................................6
4. Security Considerations .........................................7
5. References ......................................................7
5.1. Normative References .......................................7
5.2. Informative References .....................................7

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 1]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

1. Introduction

Most of the new IANA registries and respective IANA-allocation
processes for protocols defined in the PWE3 IETF working group can be
found in this document. The IANA registries defined here are in
general subdivided into three main ranges: a range to be allocated by
IETF consensus according to [RFC2434], a range to be allocated by the
expert review process according to [RFC2434], and a range to be
allocated on a first come, first served basis that is reserved for
vendor proprietary allocations. Note that vendor proprietary types
MUST NOT be registered for IETF standards or extensions thereof,
whether they are still in development or already completed.

2. Specification of Requirements

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. IANA Considerations

IANA has created several registries as described in the following
paragraphs. Each of these registries contains numeric values used to
identify data types. In each of these registries, the value of 0 is
reserved and MUST not be used.

3.1. Expert Review Directives

Throughout this document, allocation procedures for several
registries call for an expert review process according to [RFC2434].
The expert should consider the following points:

* Duplication of code point allocations should be avoided.

* A brief, clear description of the code point allocation
requested should be provided.

* The type allocation requested should be appropriate for the
particular requested value range in the registry.

The expert reviewing the request MUST approve or disapprove the
request within 10 business days from when he or she received the
expert review request.

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 2]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

3.2. MPLS Pseudowire Type

IANA has set up the registry of "MPLS Pseudowire Type". This type
has 15-bit values. PW Type values 1 through 30 are specified in this
document, and PW Type values 31 through 1024 are to be assigned by
IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434]. PW Type
values 1025 through 4096 and 32767 are to be allocated using the IETF
consensus policy defined in [RFC2434]. PW Type values 4097 through
32766 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions and are to be
assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served" policy defined
in [RFC2434]. A Pseudowire Type description is required for any
assignment from this registry. Additionally, for the vendor-
proprietary extensions range, a citation of a person or company name
is also required. A document reference should also be provided.

Initial Pseudowire Type value allocations are specified below:

PW type Description Reference
===================================================================
0x0001 Frame Relay DLCI ( Martini Mode ) [FRAME]
0x0002 ATM AAL5 SDU VCC transport [ATM]
0x0003 ATM transparent cell transport [ATM]
0x0004 Ethernet Tagged Mode [ETH]
0x0005 Ethernet [ETH]
0x0006 HDLC [PPPHDLC]
0x0007 PPP [PPPHDLC]
0x0008 SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS [CEP]
0x0009 ATM n-to-one VCC cell transport [ATM]
0x000A ATM n-to-one VPC cell transport [ATM]
0x000B IP Layer2 Transport [RFC3032]
0x000C ATM one-to-one VCC Cell Mode [ATM]
0x000D ATM one-to-one VPC Cell Mode [ATM]
0x000E ATM AAL5 PDU VCC transport [ATM]
0x000F Frame-Relay Port mode [FRAME]
0x0010 SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet [CEP]
0x0011 Structure-agnostic E1 over Packet [SAToP]
0x0012 Structure-agnostic T1 (DS1) over Packet [SAToP]
0x0013 Structure-agnostic E3 over Packet [SAToP]
0x0014 Structure-agnostic T3 (DS3) over Packet [SAToP]
0x0015 CESoPSN basic mode [CESoPSN]
0x0016 TDMoIP AAL1 Mode [TDMoIP]
0x0017 CESoPSN TDM with CAS [CESoPSN]
0x0018 TDMoIP AAL2 Mode [TDMoIP]
0x0019 Frame Relay DLCI [FRAME]

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 3]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

3.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type

IANA has to set up the registry of "Pseudowire Interface Parameter
Sub-TLV types". This type has 8-bit values. Sub-TLV types 1 through
12 are specified in this document. Sub-TLV types 13 through 64 are
to be assigned by IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in
[RFC2434]. Sub-TLV types 65 through 127 and 255 are to be allocated
using the IETF consensus policy defined in [RFC2434]. Sub-TLV types
values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions
and are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served"
policy defined in [RFC2434].

Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
up to 54 characters.

For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified in one of
the following formats:

- Text as follows:"up to X", where X is a decimal integer.
- Up to 3 different decimal integers.

The text "up to X" means up to and including X.

Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
of a person or company name is also required. A document reference
should also be provided.

Initial Pseudowire Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type allocations are
specified below:

Parameter Length Description Reference
ID
========================================================================
0x01 4 Interface MTU in octets [CRTL]
0x02 4 Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells [ATM]
0x03 up to 82 Optional Interface Description string [CRTL][RFC2277]
0x04 4 CEP/TDM Payload Bytes [CEP][TDMoIP]
0x05 4 CEP options [CEP]
0x06 4 Requested VLAN ID [ETH]
0x07 6 CEP/TDM bit-rate [CEP][TDMoIP]
0x08 4 Frame-Relay DLCI Length [FRAME]
0x09 4 Fragmentation indicator [FRAG]
0x0A 4 FCS retention indicator [FCS]
0x0B 4/8/12 TDM options [TDMoIP]
0x0C 4 VCCV parameter [VCCV]

Note that the Length field is defined as the length of the Sub-TLV,
including the Sub-TLV type and length field itself.

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 4]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

3.4. Attachment Identifiers

3.4.1. Attachment Individual Identifier Type

IANA has to set up the registry of "Attachment Individual Identifier
(AII) Type". This type has 8-bit values. AII Type value 1 is
defined in this document. AII Type values 2 through 64 are to be
assigned by IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in
[RFC2434]. AII Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are to be
allocated using the IETF consensus policy defined in [RFC2434]. AII
types values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary
extensions and are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434].

Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
up to 54 characters.

For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a
decimal integer.

Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
of a person or company name is also required. A document reference
should also be provided.

Initial Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type allocations are
specified below:

AII Type Length Description Reference
=====================================================================
0x01 4 A 32 bit unsigned number local [SIG]
identifier.

3.4.2. Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type

IANA has to set up the registry of "Attachment Group Identifier (AGI)
Type". This type has 8-bit values. AGI Type value 1 is defined in
this document. AGI Type values 2 through 64 are to be assigned by
IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434]. AGI
Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are to be allocated using the IETF
consensus policy defined in [RFC2434]. AGI type values 128 through
254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions and are to be
assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served" policy defined
in [RFC2434].

Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
up to 54 characters.

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 5]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a
decimal integer.

Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
of a person or company name is also required. A document reference
should also be provided.

Initial Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type allocations are
specified below:

AGI Type Length Description Reference
===================================================================
0x01 8 AGI encoded as Route Distinguisher [SIG]

3.5. Pseudowire Status

IANA has to set up the registry of "Pseudowire Status Codes". These
are bit strings of length 32. Status bits 0 through 4 are defined in
this document. Status bits 5 through 31 are to be assigned by IANA
using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434].

Any requests for allocation from this registry require a description
of up to 65 characters.

Initial Pseudowire Status Code value allocations are as follows:

Bit Mask Description
====================================================================
0x00000000 - Pseudowire forwarding (clear all failures) [CRTL]
0x00000001 - Pseudowire Not Forwarding [CRTL]
0x00000002 - Local Attachment Circuit (ingress) Receive Fault [CRTL]
0x00000004 - Local Attachment Circuit (egress) Transmit Fault [CRTL]
0x00000008 - Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault [CRTL]
0x00000010 - Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault [CRTL]

For the definition of the "PW Associated Channel Type" please refer
to [RFC4385].

3.6 PW Associated Channel Type

For the definition of the "PW Associated Channel Type", please refer
to [RFC4385].

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 6]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

4. Security Considerations

This document specifies only fixed identifiers, and not the protocols
used to carry the encapsulated packets across the network. Each such
protocol may have its own set of security issues, but those issues
are not affected by the identifiers specified herein.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.

[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

5.2. Informative References

[CRTL] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

[VCCV] Nadeau, T. and R. Aggarwal, "Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", Work in Progress, August
2005.

[FRAG] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "PWE3 Fragmentation and
Reassembly", Work in Progress, September 2005.

[FCS] Malis, A., Allan, D., and N. Del Regno, "PWE3 Frame Check
Sequence Retention", Work in Progress, September 2005.

[CEP] Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig,
"SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over Packet (CEP)",
Work in Progress.

[SAToP] Vainshtein, A. Ed. and Y. Stein, Ed. "Structure-Agnostic
TDM over Packet (SAToP)", Work in Progress.

[FRAME] Martini, L., Ed. and C. Kawa, "Encapsulation Methods for
Transport of Frame Relay Over MPLS Networks", Work in
Progress.

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 7]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

[ATM] Martini, L., Ed., El-Aawar, N., and M. Bocci, Ed.,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of ATM Over MPLS
Networks", Work in Progress.

[PPPHDLC] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G. and A. Malis,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Frames
Over MPLS Networks", Work in Progress.

[ETH] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet Frames
Over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

[CESoPSN] Vainshtein, A., Ed., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and
P. Pate, "Structure-aware TDM Circuit Emulation Service
over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)", Work in Progress.

[TDMoIP] Stein, Y., Shashoua, R., Insler, R., and M. Anavi, "TDM
over IP", Work in Progress, February 2005.

[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

[SIG] Rosen, E., Luo, W., Davie, B., and V. Radoaca,
"Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs",
Work in Progress, September 2005.

[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

Author's Address

Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112

EMail: [email protected]

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 8]

RFC 4446 IANA Allocations for PWE3 April 2006

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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 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
[email protected].

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Martini Best Current Practice [Page 9]