[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: GMPLS signaling (RSVP) assignment request.
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"
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?
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.
>
>
>