One document matched: draft-manner-router-alert-iana-00.txt
Network Working Group A. McDonald
Internet-Draft Siemens/Roke
Updates: RFC2113, RFC2711 J. Manner
(if approved) University of Helsinki
Intended status: Standards Track September 17, 2007
Expires: March 20, 2008
IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option
draft-manner-router-alert-iana-00
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document provides new instructions to IANA on the allocation of
IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option Values.
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use of the Router Alert Option Value Field . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IANA Considerations for IPv4 Router Alert Option Values . . 5
4.2. IANA Considerations for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
1. Introduction
The IP Router Alert Option is defined for IPv4 in [RFC2113]. A
similar IPv6 option is defined in [RFC2711]. When one of these
options is present in an IP datagram, it indicates that the contents
of the datagram may be interesting to routers. The Router Alert
Option (RAO) is used by protocols such as RSVP [RFC2205] and IGMP
[RFC3376].
Both the IPv4 and IPv6 option contain a two octet value field to
carry extra information. This information can be used, for example,
by routers to determine whether or not the packet should be more
closely examined by them.
There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO. Yet, currently there is
only a repository for IPv6 values. No repository or allocation
policies are defined for IPv4.
This document proposes the creation of a new IANA registry for
managing IPv4 Router Alert Option Values. In conjunction with this,
it also proposes an update to the way in which IPv6 Router Alert
Option Values are assigned in the existing IANA registry.
2. Requirements notation
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. Use of the Router Alert Option Value Field
One difference betwen the specifications for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router
Alert Options is the way in which values for the value field are
managed. In [RFC2113], the IPv4 Router Alert Option value field has
the value 0 assigned to "Router shall examine packet". All other
values (1-65535) are reserved. No mechanism is provided for the
allocation of these values by IANA.
The IPv6 Router Alert Option has an IANA managed registry
[IANA-IPv6RAO] containing allocations for the value field. All
values in this registry are assigned by IETF consensus.
In [RFC3175] the IPv4 Router Alert Option Value is described as a
parameter which provides "additional information" to the router in
making its interception decision, rather than as a registry managed
by IANA. As such, this aggregation mechanism makes use of the value
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
field to carry the reservation aggregation level. For the IPv6
option, this document requests a set of 32 values to be assigned by
IANA for indicating reservation levels. However, since other
registrations had already been made in that registry these values are
from 3-35 (which is actually a set of 33 values).
Although it would be strongly desirable to have the same values being
used in both the IPv4 and IPv6 registries, the initial allocations in
[RFC2711] and the aggregation level allocations in [RFC3175] have
made this impossible. The following table shows the allocations in
the IPv6 registry and values used in the IPv4 registry, where the
latter have been deduced from [RFC2113] and [RFC3175] with the
assumption that the number of aggregation levels can be limited to 32
as in the IPv6 case. Entries for values 6 to 31 have been elided for
brevity.
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Value | IPv4 RAO Meaning | IPv6 RAO Meaning |
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| 0 | Router shall examine | Datagram contains a |
| | packet [RFC2113] | Multicast Listener Discovery |
| | [RFC2205] [RFC3376] | message [RFC2711] [RFC2710] |
| | [RFC4286] | [RFC4286] |
| 1 | Aggregated Reservation | Datagram contains RSVP |
| | Nesting Level 1 | message [RFC2711] [RFC2205] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
| 2 | Aggregated Reservation | Datagram contains an Active |
| | Nesting Level 2 | Networks message [RFC2711] |
| | [RFC3175] | [Schwartz2000] |
| 3 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 3 | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
| 4 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 4 | Nesting Level 1 [RFC3175] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
| 5 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 5 | Nesting Level 2 [RFC3175] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 32 | Aggregated Reservation | Aggregated Reservation |
| | Nesting Level 32 | Nesting Level 29 [RFC3175] |
| | [RFC3175] | |
| 33 | Reserved | Aggregated Reservation |
| | | Nesting Level 30 [RFC3175] |
| 34 | Reserved | Aggregated Reservation |
| | | Nesting Level 31 [RFC3175] |
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
| 35 | Reserved | Aggregated Reservation |
| | | Nesting Level 32(?) |
| | | [RFC3175] |
| 36-65534 | Reserved | Reserved to IANA for future |
| | | use |
| 65535 | Reserved | Reserved [IANA-IPv6RAO] |
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 32 has been
marked with a question mark due to an inconsistency in the text of
[RFC3175], which is consequently reflected in the IANA registry. In
that document the values 3-35 (i.e. 33 values) are defined for
nesting levels 0-31 (i.e. 32 levels).
It is unclear why nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
[RFC3175]). Although it is not possible to remedy the past
inconsistency between the two sets of allocations, it is still
preferable that future allocations should be made identically in both
registries.
4. IANA Considerations
This section contains the proposed new procedures for managing Router
Alert Option Values. This requires the creation of a registry for
IPv4 Router Alert Option Values (described in Section 4.1) and
changes to the way in which IPv6 Router Alert Option Values are
managed (described in Section 4.2).
4.1. IANA Considerations for IPv4 Router Alert Option Values
The value field, as specified in [RFC2113] is two octets in length.
The value field is registered and maintained by IANA. The initial
contents of this registry are:
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
+----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Router shall examine packet | [RFC2119] |
| 1-32 | Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level | [RFC3175] |
| 33-35 | Reserved (not to be allocated) - Note: | |
| | These values are allocated in the IPv6 | |
| | Router Alert Option Values registry | |
| 36-65534 | Reserved to IANA for future use | |
| 65535 | Reserved | |
+----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
New values are to be assigned via IETF Consensus as defined in
[RFC2434]. When a new allocation is made in this registry an
identical registration MUST be made in the IPv6 Router Alert Option
Values registry, or that value MUST be reserved. In the case that it
is reserved rather than allocated, the registry entry should say
"Reserved (not to be allocated) - Note: This value is allocated in
the IPv6 Router Alert Options registry".
4.2. IANA Considerations for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values
The registry for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values should continue to
be maintained as specified in [RFC2711]. However, when a new
allocation is made in this registry an identical registration MUST be
made in the IPv4 Router Alert Option Values registry, or that value
MUST be reserved. In the case that it is reserved rather than
allocated, the registry entry should say "Reserved (not to be
allocated) - Note: This value is allocated in the IPv4 Router Alert
Options registry".
5. Security Considerations
Since this document is only concerned with the IANA management of the
IPv4 Router Alert Option values registry it raises no new security
issues beyond those identified in [RFC2113] and [RFC2711].
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Robert Hancock, Martin Stiemerling and Alan Ford for their
helpful comments on this document.
7. References
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
7.1. Normative References
[IANA-IPv6RAO]
"IANA Registry for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Router Alert Option Values" .
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values>
[RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, October 1999.
[RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie,
"Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations",
RFC 3175, September 2001.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",
RFC 4286, December 2005.
[Schwartz2000]
Schwartz, B., Jackson, A., Strayer, W., Zhou, W.,
Rockwell, D., and C. Partridge, "Smart Packets: Applying
Active Networks to Network Management", ACM Transactions
on Computer Systems (TOCS) Volume 18 , Issue 1,
February 2000.
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 2007
Authors' Addresses
Andrew McDonald
Roke Manor Research Ltd (a Siemens company)
Old Salisbury Lane
Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN
United Kingdom
Email: andrew.mcdonald@roke.co.uk
Jukka Manner
University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 68
University of Helsinki FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Email: jmanner@cs.helsinki.fi
URI: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/jmanner/
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IANA Considerations for Router Alert September 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
McDonald & Manner Expires March 20, 2008 [Page 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 15:27:55 |