Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          A. FarrelRequest for Comments: 4859                            Old Dog ConsultingCategory: Informational                                       April 2007Codepoint Registry for the Flags Field inthe Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)Session Attribute ObjectStatus 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 Usage2.1.RFC 3209   [RFC3209] defines the use of three bits as follows:   0x01  Local protection desired   0x02  Label recording desired   0x04  SE Style desired2.2.RFC 4090   [RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows:   0x08  Bandwidth protection desired   0x10  Node protection desired2.3.RFC 4736   [RFC4736] defines the use of one bit as follows:   0x20  Path re-evaluation request3.  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 inSection 2 of this document.5.  Acknowledgements   Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner, and Thomas Narten for reviewing   this document.6.  References6.1.  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",RFC3473, 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 2007Author's Address   Adrian Farrel   Old Dog Consulting   EMail: adrian@olddog.co.ukFarrel                       Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4859           Registry for RSVP-TE Session Flags         April 2007Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 5]