[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: GMPLS signaling (RSVP) assignment request.
Lou, nomrally the IANA assigns such number right at the
time that the RFC gets published. The reason for that is
that they do not want to end up with assignments for
stuff that does not make it up to RFC.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@movaz.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:44 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Fwd: GMPLS signaling (RSVP) assignment request.
>
>
> FYI
>
> >Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:39:18 -0500
> >To: iana@iana.org
> >From: Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>
> >Subject: GMPLS signaling (RSVP) assignment request.
> >
> >Hello!
> >
> >We'd like to request assignment of types defined in
> >draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06. This draft has
> >passed WG last call and is on it's way to IESG/IETF last call.
> >Assignment is needed to ensure interoperability.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Lou Berger (and co-authors)
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >RSVP related values defined in draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06
> >with suggested values.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Message Types
> >
> >o Notify message (suggested Message type =21)
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Class Types
> >
> >o RSVP_HOP (Existing C-Num 3)
> > - IPv4 IF_ID RSVP_HOP (Suggested C-type =3)
> > - IPv6 IF_ID RSVP_HOP (Suggested C-type =4)
> >
> >o ERROR_SPEC (Existing C-Num 6)
> > - IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC (Suggested C-type =3)
> > - IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC (Suggested C-type =4)
> >
> >o LABEL_REQUEST (Existing Class-Num 19)
> > - Generalized_Label_Request (Suggested C-Type =4)
> >
> >o RSVP_LABEL (Existing Class-Num 16)
> > - Generalized_Label (Suggested C-Type =2)
> > - Waveband_Switching_Label C-Type (Suggested C-Type =3)
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >New Class-Nums, C-Types inherited from Label object (same as CNum16)
> >
> >o RECOVERY_LABEL Class-Num of form 0bbbbbbb (suggested =34)
> >o SUGGESTED_LABEL Class-Num of form 10bbbbbb (suggested =129)
> >o UPSTREAM_LABEL Class-Num of form 0bbbbbbb (suggested =35)
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >New Class-Nums
> >
> >o LABEL_SET Class-Num of form 0bbbbbbb
> (suggested =36)
> > - Type 1 (C-Type =1)
> >o ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET Class-Num of form 10bbbbbb
> (suggested =130)
> > - Type 1 Acceptable_Label_Set (C-type from label_set cnum)
> >o NOTIFY_REQUEST Class-Num of form 11bbbbbb
> (suggested =195)
> > - IPv4 Notify Request (C-Type =1)
> > - IPv6 Notify Request (C-Type =2)
> >o PROTECTION Class-Num of form 0bbbbbbb
> (suggested =37)
> > - Type 1 (C-Type =1)
> >o ADMIN STATUS Class-Num of form 11bbbbbb
> (suggested =196)
> > - Type 1 (C-Type =1)
> >o RESTART_CAP Class-Num of form 10bbbbbb
> (suggested =131)
> > - Type 1 (C-Type =1)
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >ERO/RRO subobject types
> >
> >o Label ERO subobject
> > Type 3 - Label
> >
> >o Label RRO subobject
> > Type 3 - Label
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Error codes
> >
> >o "Routing problem/Label Set"
> (Suggested value =11)
> >o "Routing problem/Switching Type"
> (Suggested value =12)
> >o "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value"
> (Suggested value =13)
> >o "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding"
> (Suggested value =14)
> >o "Routing problem/Unsupported Link Protection"
> (Suggested value =15)
> >o "Notify Error/Control Channel Active State"
> (Suggested value =4)
> >o "Notify Error/Control Channel Degraded State"
> (Suggested value =5)
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >[related section from draft]
> >13. IANA Considerations
> >
> > IANA assigns values to RSVP protocol parameters. Within
> the current
> > document multiple objects are defined. Each of these
> objects contain
> > C-Types. This section defines the rules for the
> assignment of the
> > related C-Type values. This section uses the
> terminology of BCP 26
> > "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
> > [BCP26].
> >
> > As per [RFC2205], C-Type is an 8-bit number that identifies the
> > function of an object. There are no range restrictions. All
> > possible values except zero are available for assignment.
> >
> > The assignment of C-Type values of the objects defined in this
> > document fall into three categories. The first category
> inherit C-
> > Types from the Label object, i.e., object class number
> 16 [RSVP-TE].
> > IANA is requested to institute a policy whereby all C-Type values
> > assign for the Label object are also assigned for the following
> > objects:
> > o Suggested_Label (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Upstream_Label (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Recovery_Label (Class-Num TBA)
> >
> > The second category of objects follow independent policies.
> > Specifically, following the policies outlined in [BCP26], C-Type
> > values in the range 0x00 - 0x3F are allocated through an IETF
> > Consensus action, values in the range 00x40 - 0x5F are
> allocated as
> > First Come First Served, and values in the range 0x60 - 0x7F are
> > reserved for Private Use. This policy applies to the following
> > objects.
> > o Label_Set (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Notify_Request (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Protection (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Admin Status (Class-Num TBA)
> > o Restart_Cap (Class-Num TBA)
> >
> >
> >
> >Berger, et. al.
> [Page 35]
> >Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
> November 2001
> >
> >
> > The assignment of C-Type values for the remaining object, the
> > Acceptable_Label_Set object, follows the assignment of
> C-Type values
> > of the Label_Set object. IANA is requested to institute a policy
> > whereby all C-Type values assigned for the Label_Set
> object are also
> > assigned for the Acceptable_Label_Set object.
>
>