GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6328

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd Request for Comments: 6328 Huawei BCP: 164 July 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721

     IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers

Abstract

 Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
 the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /
 International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol
 Identifier (NLPID).  This document provides NLPID IANA
 considerations.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6328.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. NLPIDs ..........................................................3
    2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID ....................................3
    2.2. Code Point 0x80 ............................................4
    2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation .......................4
 3. IANA Considerations .............................................5
 4. Security Considerations .........................................5
 5. References ......................................................5
    5.1. Normative References .......................................5
    5.2. Informative References .....................................6
 6. Acknowledgements ................................................7
 Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page ............................8
 Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID ................................9

1. Introduction

 Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of
 the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization /
 International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol
 Identifier (NLPID).
 The term "NLPID" is not actually used in [ISO9577], which refers to
 one-octet IPIs (Initial Protocol Identifiers) and SPIs (Subsequent
 Protocol Identifiers).  While these are two logically separate kinds
 of one-octet identifiers, most values are usable as both an IPI and
 an SPI.  In the remainder of this document, the term NLPID is used
 for such values.
 The registry of NLPID values is maintained by ISO/IEC by updating
 [ISO9577].  The procedure specified by ISO/IEC in that document is
 that an NLPID code point can be allocated without approval by
 ISO/IEC, as long as the code point is not in a range of values
 categorized for an organization other than the organization
 allocating the code point and as long as ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 is
 informed.
 This document provides NLPID IANA considerations.  That is, it
 specifies the level of IETF approval necessary for a code point to be
 allocated for IETF use, the procedures to be used and actions to be
 taken by IANA in connection with NLPIDs, and related guidelines.
 [RFC5226] is incorporated herein except to the extent that there are
 contrary provisions in this document.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

 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].

2. NLPIDs

 [ISO9577] defines one-octet network layer protocol identifiers that
 are commonly called NLPIDs, which is the term used in this document.
 NLPIDs are used in a number of protocols.  For example, in the
 mar$pro.type field of the multicast address resolution server
 protocol [RFC2022], the ar$pro.type field of the NBMA (Non-Broadcast
 Multi-Access) next hop resolution protocol [RFC2332] and in the IS-IS
 Protocols Supported TLV [RFC1195].  See Appendix B.

2.1. Sub-Ranges of the NLPID

 Sub-ranges of the possible NLPID values are categorized by [ISO9577]
 for organizations as shown below, primarily for the ISO/IEC
 (International Organization for Standardization / International
 Electrotechnical Commission) and the ITU-T (International
 Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector):
    Code Point  Category
    ----------  --------
    0x00        ISO/IEC
    0x01-0x0F   ITU-T
    0x10-0x3F   ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
    0x40-0x43   ISO/IEC
    0x44        ITU-T
    0x45-0x4F   ISO/IEC
    0x50-0x6F   ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
    0x70-0x7F   Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
    0x80        ISO/IEC (see Section 2.2)
    0x81-0x8F   ISO/IEC
    0x90-0xAF   ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
    0xB0-0xBF   ITU-T
    0xC0-0xCF   Potentially available for IANA (see Section 2.3)
    0xD0-0xEF   ITU-T Rec. X.25 and ISO/IEC 8208
    0xF0-0xFE   Joint ITU-T and ISO/IEC
    0xFF        Reserved for an Extension mechanism to be
                jointly developed by ITU-T and ISO/IEC

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

2.2. Code Point 0x80

 NLPID 0x80 is known as the IEEE (Institute of Electrical &
 Electronics Engineers) SNAP (SubNetwork Access Protocol) code point.
 It is followed by five octets, using the IEEE SNAP SAP (Service
 Access Point) conventions, to specify the protocol.  Those
 conventions are described in Section 3 of [RFC5342].  In particular,
 it is valid for such a five-octet sequence to start with the IANA OUI
 (Organizationally Unique Identifier) followed by two further octets
 assigned by IANA as provided in [RFC5342].  The same IANA registry is
 used for such protocol identifiers whether they are planned to be
 introduced by the 0x80 NLPID or the IEEE SNAP SAP LSAPs (Link-Layer
 Service Access Points) (0xAAAA).  Values allocated by IANA may be
 used in either context as appropriate.
 Because of the limited number of NLPID code points available for IANA
 allocation, use of the IEEE SNAP NLPID is RECOMMENDED rather than
 allocation of a new one-octet NLPID code point.

2.3. NLPIDs Available for IANA Allocation

 A limited number of code points are available that could be allocated
 by IANA under [ISO9577].  Because of this, it is desirable, where
 practical, to use code point 0x80, as discussed in Section 2.2 above,
 or to get code points allocated from the ranges categorized to other
 organizations.  For example, code point 0x8E was allocated for IPv6
 [RFC2460], although it is in a range of code points categorized for
 ISO/IEC.  One-byte code points are assigned to TRILL and IEEE 802.1aq
 as they are intended for use within the IS-IS Protocols Supported TLV
 [RFC1195].
 The table below, which includes two new code point allocations made
 by this document, shows those still available.
    Code Point  Status
    ----------  --------
    0xC0        TRILL [RFC6325]
    0xC1        IEEE 802.1aq [802.1aq]
    0xC2-0xCB   Available
    0xCC        IPv4 [RFC791]
    0xCD-0xCE   Available
    0xCF        PPP [RFC1661]

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

3. IANA Considerations

 As long as code points are available, IANA will allocate additional
 values when required by applying the IETF Review policy as per
 [RFC5226].
 Whenever it allocates an NLPID, IANA will inform the IETF liaison to
 ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee 6)
 [JTC1SC6], or if IANA is unable to determine that IETF liaison, the
 IAB.  The liaison (or the IAB) will then ensure that ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6
 is informed so that [ISO9577] can be updated since ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6
 is the body that maintains [ISO9577].  To simplify this process, it
 is desirable that the IAB maintain an IETF liaison to ISO/IEC JTC1
 SC6.
 This document allocates the code points 0xC0 and 0xC1 as shown in
 Section 2.3 and IANA shall request the liaison (or the IAB) to so
 inform ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6.
 IANA maintains a web page showing NLPIDs that have been allocated to
 a protocol being developed or extended by the IETF or are otherwise
 of interest.  The initial state of the web page is as shown in
 Appendix A.  IANA will update this web page for (1) NLPIDs allocated
 by IANA and (2) other allocations or de-allocations when IANA is
 requested to make such changes to this web page by the IETF liaison
 mentioned above.

4. Security Considerations

 This document is concerned with allocation of NLPIDs.  It is not
 directly concerned with security.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

 [ISO9577] International Organization for Standardization "Information
           technology - Telecommunications and Information exchange
           between systems - Protocol identification in the network
           layer", ISO/IEC TR 9577:1999, 1999-12-15.
 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
           IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
           2008.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

 [RFC5342] Eastlake 3rd., D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
           Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342,
           September 2008.
 [RFC6325] Radia, P., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
           Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", RFC
           6325, July 2011.

5.2. Informative References

 [802.1aq] Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual
           Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9: Shortest Path
           Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D2.1, 21 August 2009.
 [JTC1SC6] ISO/IEC JTC1 SC6 (International Organization for
           Standardization / International Electrotechnical
           Commission, Joint Technical Committee 1, Study Committee
           6), http://www.iso.org/iso/
           iso_technical_committee.html?commid=45072
 [RFC791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
           1981.
 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
           dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
 [RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
           51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
 [RFC1707] McGovern, M. and R. Ullmann, "CATNIP: Common Architecture
           for the Internet", RFC 1707, October 1994.
 [RFC2022] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based
           ATM Networks", RFC 2022, November 1996.
 [RFC2332] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B., and N.
           Doraswamy, "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC
           2332, April 1998.
 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
           (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

6. Acknowledgements

 The contributions and support of the following people, listed in
 alphabetic order, are gratefully acknowledged:
    Ayan Banerjee, Gonzalo Camarillo, Dinesh Dutt, Don Fedyk, Alfred
    Hines, Russ Housley, Andrew Malis, Radia Perlman, Dan Romascanu,
    and Peter Ashwood-Smith.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

Appendix A. Initial IANA NLPID Web Page

 NLPIDs of Interest
    Code Point  Use
    ----------  --------
     0x00       Null
     0x08       Q.933 (RFC 2427)
     0x80       IEEE SNAP (RFC 6328)
     0x81       ISO CLNP (Connectionless Network Protocol)
     0x82       ISO ES-IS
     0x83       IS-IS (RFC 1195)
     0x8E       IPv6 (RFC 2460)
     0xB0       FRF.9 (RFC 2427)
     0xB1       FRF.12 (RF C2427)
     0xC0       TRILL (RFC 6325)
     0xC1       IEEE 802.1aq
     0xCC       IPv4 (RFC 791)
     0xCF       PPP (RFC 1661)
 Note: According to [RFC1707], NLPID 0x70 was assigned to IPv7.  That
 assignment appears to no longer be in effect as it is not listed in
 ISO/IEC 9577.  IPv7 was itself a temporary code point assignment made
 while a decision was being made between three candidates for the next
 generation of IP after IPv4.  Those candidates were assigned IPv6,
 IPv7, and IPv8.  IPv6 was selected.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 6328 IANA Considerations for NLPIDs July 2011

Appendix B. RFC References to NLPID

 The following RFCs, issued before the end of March 2009, excluding
 other survey RFCs and obsolete RFCs, reference the NLPID as such:
 RFC 1195  Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
             Environments
 RFC 1356  Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
             Mode
 RFC 1377  The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
 RFC 1661  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
 RFC 1707  CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet
 RFC 1755  ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
 RFC 2022  Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks
 RFC 2332  NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
 RFC 2337  Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
             Mode PIM
 RFC 2363  PPP Over FUNI
 RFC 2390  Inverse Address Resolution Protocol
 RFC 2427  Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
 RFC 2590  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
             Specification
 RFC 2684  Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
 RFC 2955  Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and
             Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking
             Function
 RFC 3070  Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay
 RFC 5308  Routing IPv6 with IS-IS

Author's Address

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 Huawei Technologies
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 Phone: +1-508-333-2270
 EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 9]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6328.txt · Last modified: 2011/07/22 15:49 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki