[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: GMPLS signaling (RSVP) assignment request.
At 02:53 PM 3/29/2002, Zhi-Wei Lin wrote:
>Hi Lou,
>
>I was looking over the codes you suggested, and saw that there was a
>redundancy: error code/value 24/6 and your suggested 24/13 both provide:
>
>o "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value"
looks like a duplicate, and should be dropped.
>Could you clarify whether 24/13 is for something else (a cut-and-paste
>problem)?
> Also, for the RRO, type = 3 (label), this is a redefinition of
>the original RRO label type, and not a new type?
Yes, this is in fact just a definition of a bit in the flags field.
Lou
>Thanks
>Zhi
>
>
>Lou Berger wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >