





Network Working Group                                         L. Martini
Request for Comments: 4446                            Cisco Systems Inc.
BCP: 116                                                      April 2006
Category: Best Current Practice


     IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document allocates the fixed pseudowire identifier and other
   fixed protocol values for protocols that have been defined in the
   Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge (PWE3) working group.  Detailed IANA
   allocation instructions are also included in this document.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Specification of Requirements ...................................2
   3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
      3.1. Expert Review Directives ...................................2
      3.2. MPLS Pseudowire Type .......................................3
      3.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type ..........................4
      3.4. Attachment Identifiers .....................................5
           3.4.1. Attachment Individual Identifier Type ...............5
           3.4.2. Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type ..............5
      3.5. Pseudowire Status ..........................................6
      3.6. PW Associated Channel Type .................................6
   4. Security Considerations .........................................7
   5. References ......................................................7
      5.1. Normative References .......................................7
      5.2. Informative References .....................................7









Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


1.  Introduction

   Most of the new IANA registries and respective IANA-allocation
   processes for protocols defined in the PWE3 IETF working group can be
   found in this document.  The IANA registries defined here are in
   general subdivided into three main ranges: a range to be allocated by
   IETF consensus according to [RFC2434], a range to be allocated by the
   expert review process according to [RFC2434], and a range to be
   allocated on a first come, first served basis that is reserved for
   vendor proprietary allocations.  Note that vendor proprietary types
   MUST NOT be registered for IETF standards or extensions thereof,
   whether they are still in development or already completed.

2.  Specification of Requirements

   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].

3.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has created several registries as described in the following
   paragraphs.  Each of these registries contains numeric values used to
   identify data types.  In each of these registries, the value of 0 is
   reserved and MUST not be used.

3.1.  Expert Review Directives

   Throughout this document, allocation procedures for several
   registries call for an expert review process according to [RFC2434].
   The expert should consider the following points:

      *  Duplication of code point allocations should be avoided.

      *  A brief, clear description of the code point allocation
         requested should be provided.

      *  The type allocation requested should be appropriate for the
         particular requested value range in the registry.

   The expert reviewing the request MUST approve or disapprove the
   request within 10 business days from when he or she received the
   expert review request.








Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


3.2.  MPLS Pseudowire Type

   IANA has set up the registry of "MPLS Pseudowire Type".  This type
   has 15-bit values.  PW Type values 1 through 30 are specified in this
   document, and PW Type values 31 through 1024 are to be assigned by
   IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434].  PW Type
   values 1025 through 4096 and 32767 are to be allocated using the IETF
   consensus policy defined in [RFC2434].  PW Type values 4097 through
   32766 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions and are to be
   assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served" policy defined
   in [RFC2434].  A Pseudowire Type description is required for any
   assignment from this registry.  Additionally, for the vendor-
   proprietary extensions range, a citation of a person or company name
   is also required.  A document reference should also be provided.

   Initial Pseudowire Type value allocations are specified below:

   PW type Description                                      Reference
   ===================================================================
   0x0001  Frame Relay DLCI ( Martini Mode )                [FRAME]
   0x0002  ATM AAL5 SDU VCC transport                       [ATM]
   0x0003  ATM transparent cell transport                   [ATM]
   0x0004  Ethernet Tagged Mode                             [ETH]
   0x0005  Ethernet                                         [ETH]
   0x0006  HDLC                                             [PPPHDLC]
   0x0007  PPP                                              [PPPHDLC]
   0x0008  SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS    [CEP]
   0x0009  ATM n-to-one VCC cell transport                  [ATM]
   0x000A  ATM n-to-one VPC cell transport                  [ATM]
   0x000B  IP Layer2 Transport                              [RFC3032]
   0x000C  ATM one-to-one VCC Cell Mode                     [ATM]
   0x000D  ATM one-to-one VPC Cell Mode                     [ATM]
   0x000E  ATM AAL5 PDU VCC transport                       [ATM]
   0x000F  Frame-Relay Port mode                            [FRAME]
   0x0010  SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet          [CEP]
   0x0011  Structure-agnostic E1 over Packet                [SAToP]
   0x0012  Structure-agnostic T1 (DS1) over Packet          [SAToP]
   0x0013  Structure-agnostic E3 over Packet                [SAToP]
   0x0014  Structure-agnostic T3 (DS3) over Packet          [SAToP]
   0x0015  CESoPSN basic mode                               [CESoPSN]
   0x0016  TDMoIP AAL1 Mode                                 [TDMoIP]
   0x0017  CESoPSN TDM with CAS                             [CESoPSN]
   0x0018  TDMoIP AAL2 Mode                                 [TDMoIP]
   0x0019  Frame Relay DLCI                                 [FRAME]







Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


3.3.  Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type

   IANA has to set up the registry of "Pseudowire Interface Parameter
   Sub-TLV types".  This type has 8-bit values.  Sub-TLV types 1 through
   12 are specified in this document.  Sub-TLV types 13 through 64 are
   to be assigned by IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in
   [RFC2434].  Sub-TLV types 65 through 127 and 255 are to be allocated
   using the IETF consensus policy defined in [RFC2434].  Sub-TLV types
   values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions
   and are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served"
   policy defined in [RFC2434].

   Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
   up to 54 characters.

   For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified in one of
   the following formats:

      -  Text as follows:"up to X", where X is a decimal integer.
      - Up to 3 different decimal integers.

   The text "up to X" means up to and including X.

   Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
   of a person or company name is also required.  A document reference
   should also be provided.

   Initial Pseudowire Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type allocations are
   specified below:

Parameter  Length       Description                       Reference
 ID
========================================================================
 0x01      4       Interface MTU in octets               [CRTL]
 0x02      4       Maximum Number of concatenated ATM cells [ATM]
 0x03   up to 82   Optional Interface Description string [CRTL][RFC2277]
 0x04      4       CEP/TDM Payload Bytes                 [CEP][TDMoIP]
 0x05      4       CEP options                           [CEP]
 0x06      4       Requested VLAN ID                     [ETH]
 0x07      6       CEP/TDM bit-rate                      [CEP][TDMoIP]
 0x08      4       Frame-Relay DLCI Length               [FRAME]
 0x09      4       Fragmentation indicator               [FRAG]
 0x0A      4       FCS retention indicator               [FCS]
 0x0B    4/8/12    TDM options                           [TDMoIP]
 0x0C      4       VCCV parameter                        [VCCV]

   Note that the Length field is defined as the length of the Sub-TLV,
   including the Sub-TLV type and length field itself.



Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


3.4.  Attachment Identifiers

3.4.1.  Attachment Individual Identifier Type

   IANA has to set up the registry of "Attachment Individual Identifier
   (AII) Type".  This type has 8-bit values.  AII Type value 1 is
   defined in this document.  AII Type values 2 through 64 are to be
   assigned by IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in
   [RFC2434].  AII Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are to be
   allocated using the IETF consensus policy defined in [RFC2434].  AII
   types values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary
   extensions and are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come
   First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434].

   Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
   up to 54 characters.

   For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a
   decimal integer.

   Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
   of a person or company name is also required.  A document reference
   should also be provided.

   Initial Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type allocations are
   specified below:

   AII Type     Length    Description                          Reference
   =====================================================================
   0x01         4         A 32 bit unsigned number local       [SIG]
                          identifier.

3.4.2.  Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type

   IANA has to set up the registry of "Attachment Group Identifier (AGI)
   Type".  This type has 8-bit values.  AGI Type value 1 is defined in
   this document.  AGI Type values 2 through 64 are to be assigned by
   IANA, using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434].  AGI
   Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are to be allocated using the IETF
   consensus policy defined in [RFC2434].  AGI type values 128 through
   254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions and are to be
   assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served" policy defined
   in [RFC2434].

   Any assignments requested from this registry require a description of
   up to 54 characters.





Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


   For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a
   decimal integer.

   Additionally, for the vendor-proprietary extensions range, a citation
   of a person or company name is also required.  A document reference
   should also be provided.

   Initial Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type allocations are
   specified below:

   AGI Type     Length    Description                        Reference
    ===================================================================
    0x01         8         AGI encoded as Route Distinguisher [SIG]

3.5.  Pseudowire Status

   IANA has to set up the registry of "Pseudowire Status Codes".  These
   are bit strings of length 32.  Status bits 0 through 4 are defined in
   this document.  Status bits 5 through 31 are to be assigned by IANA
   using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434].

   Any requests for allocation from this registry require a description
   of up to 65 characters.

   Initial Pseudowire Status Code value allocations are as follows:

   Bit Mask     Description
   ====================================================================
   0x00000000 - Pseudowire forwarding (clear all failures)       [CRTL]
   0x00000001 - Pseudowire Not Forwarding                        [CRTL]
   0x00000002 - Local Attachment Circuit (ingress) Receive Fault [CRTL]
   0x00000004 - Local Attachment Circuit (egress) Transmit Fault [CRTL]
   0x00000008 - Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Receive Fault      [CRTL]
   0x00000010 - Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Transmit Fault      [CRTL]

   For the definition of the "PW Associated Channel Type" please refer
   to [RFC4385].

3.6 PW Associated Channel Type

   For the definition of the "PW Associated Channel Type", please refer
   to [RFC4385].









Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


4.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies only fixed identifiers, and not the protocols
   used to carry the encapsulated packets across the network.  Each such
   protocol may have its own set of security issues, but those issues
   are not affected by the identifiers specified herein.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
             October 1998.

   [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
             Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

5.2.  Informative References

   [CRTL]    Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
             G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
             Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [VCCV]    Nadeau, T. and R. Aggarwal, "Pseudo Wire Virtual Circuit
             Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", Work in Progress, August
             2005.

   [FRAG]    Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "PWE3 Fragmentation and
             Reassembly", Work in Progress, September 2005.

   [FCS]     Malis, A., Allan, D., and N. Del Regno, "PWE3 Frame Check
             Sequence Retention", Work in Progress, September 2005.

   [CEP]     Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., Ed., and D. Zelig,
             "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over Packet (CEP)",
             Work in Progress.

   [SAToP]   Vainshtein, A. Ed. and Y. Stein, Ed. "Structure-Agnostic
             TDM over Packet (SAToP)", Work in Progress.

   [FRAME]   Martini, L., Ed. and C. Kawa, "Encapsulation Methods for
             Transport of Frame Relay Over MPLS Networks", Work in
             Progress.




Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


   [ATM]     Martini, L., Ed., El-Aawar, N., and M. Bocci, Ed.,
             "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of ATM Over MPLS
             Networks", Work in Progress.

   [PPPHDLC] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G. and A. Malis,
             "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Frames
             Over MPLS Networks", Work in Progress.

   [ETH]     Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
             "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet Frames
             Over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

   [CESoPSN] Vainshtein, A., Ed., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and
             P. Pate, "Structure-aware TDM Circuit Emulation Service
             over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)", Work in Progress.

   [TDMoIP]  Stein, Y., Shashoua, R., Insler, R., and M. Anavi, "TDM
             over IP", Work in Progress, February 2005.

   [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
             Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
             Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [SIG]     Rosen, E., Luo, W., Davie, B., and V. Radoaca,
             "Provisioning, Autodiscovery, and Signaling in L2VPNs",
             Work in Progress, September 2005.

   [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
             "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
             Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

Author's Address

   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
   Englewood, CO, 80112

   EMail: lmartini@cisco.com












Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 4446               IANA Allocations for PWE3              April 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 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 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 in BCP 78 and BCP 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 at
   http://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 provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Martini                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

