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: [email protected]













































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
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.







Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 5]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.rbfh.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.