💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4937.txt captured on 2023-04-26 at 15:01:32.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group P. Arberg
Request for Comments: 4937 Redback Networks
Category: Informational V. Mammoliti
Cisco Systems
June 2007
IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE)
Status 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 describes the IANA considerations for the PPP over
Ethernet (PPPoE) protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................2
1.2. Specification of Requirements ..............................2
2. IANA Considerations .............................................2
2.1. Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values .................2
2.2. Reserved PPPoE TAG Values ..................................3
2.3. Registration Policies for PPPoE Code Fields ................3
2.4. Reserved PPPoE Code fields .................................4
3. Security Considerations .........................................4
4. References ......................................................4
4.1. Normative References .......................................4
4.2. Informative References .....................................4
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4937 IANA Considerations for PPPoE June 2007
1. Introduction
This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding the registration of values related to the
PPP over Ethernet Protocol (PPPoE), defined in [RFC2516], in
accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. It also reserves PPPoE TAG values
as well as PPPoE packet Code fields, which are or have been in use on
the Internet.
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
26: "name space", "registration".
The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
26: "First Come First Served".
1.2. Specification of Requirements
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. These words are often capitalized. 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. IANA Considerations
The PPPoE protocol, as defined in [RFC2516], defines two name spaces
that require registration, the PPPoE TAG and the PPPoE Code field.
2.1. Registration Policies for PPPoE TAG Values
IANA has set up a registry of "PPPoE TAG Values". These are 16-bit
values. PPPoE TAG values already in use are specified as reserved in
this document. All other TAG values between 0 and 65535 are to be
assigned by IANA, using the "First Come First Served" policy defined
in [RFC2434].
A TAG-Name and a description for the usage, as well as a point of
contact, MUST be provided for any assignment from this registry. A
document reference SHOULD also be provided.
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4937 IANA Considerations for PPPoE June 2007
2.2. Reserved PPPoE TAG Values
TAG Value TAG Name Tag Description Reference
----------- ------------------- --------------------- ---------
0 0x0000 End-Of-List See the reference [RFC2516]
257 0x0101 Service-Name See the reference [RFC2516]
258 0x0102 AC-Name See the reference [RFC2516]
259 0x0103 Host-Uniq See the reference [RFC2516]
260 0x0104 AC-Cookie See the reference [RFC2516]
261 0x0105 Vendor-Specific See the reference [RFC2516]
262 0x0106 Credits See the reference [RFC4938]
263 0x0107 Metrics See the reference [RFC4938]
264 0x0108 Sequence Number See the reference [RFC4938]
272 0x0110 Relay-Session-Id See the reference [RFC2516]
273 0x0111 HURL See the reference [CARREL]
274 0x0112 MOTM See the reference [CARREL]
288 0x0120 PPP-Max-Payload See the reference [RFC4638]
289 0x0121 IP_Route_Add See the reference [CARREL]
513 0x0201 Service-Name-Error See the reference [RFC2516]
514 0x0202 AC-System-Error See the reference [RFC2516]
515 0x0203 Generic-Error See the reference [RFC2516]
2.3. Registration Policies for PPPoE Code Fields
IANA has set up a registry of PPPoE Active Discovery Code fields.
These are 8-bit values. PPPoE Code fields already in use are
specified as reserved in this document. All other Code values
between 0 and 255 are to be assigned by IANA, using the "First Come
First Served" policy defined in [RFC2434].
A PPPoE Active Discovery packet name and a description for the usage,
as well as a point of contact, MUST be provided for any assignment
from this registry.
A document reference SHOULD also be provided.
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4937 IANA Considerations for PPPoE June 2007
2.4. Reserved PPPoE Code fields
Code PPPoE Packet Name Description Reference
-------- ----------------------------- ----------------- ---------
0 0x00 PPP Session Stage See the reference [RFC2516]
7 0x07 PADO, Offer See the reference [RFC2516]
9 0x09 PADI, Initiation See the reference [RFC2516]
10 0x0a PADG, Session-Grant See the reference [RFC4938]
11 0x0b PADC, Session-Credit Response See the reference [RFC4938]
12 0x0c PADQ, Quality See the reference [RFC4938]
25 0x19 PADR, Request See the reference [RFC2516]
101 0x65 PADS, Session-confirmation See the reference [RFC2516]
167 0xa7 PADT, Terminate See the reference [RFC2516]
211 0xd3 PADM, Message See the reference [CARREL]
212 0xd4 PADN, Network See the reference [CARREL]
3. Security Considerations
This document focuses on IANA considerations for the PPPoE protocol,
and as such, should help remove the possibility of the same PPPoE
code field and PPPoE TAG value being used for different
functionalities.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D.,
and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
4.2. Informative References
[CARREL] Carrel D., Simone D., Ho C. and T. Stoner, "Extensions to a
Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", Work in
Progress.
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4937 IANA Considerations for PPPoE June 2007
[RFC4938] Berry, B. and H. Holgate, "PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)
Extensions for Credit Flow and Link Metrics", RFC 4938,
June 2007.
[RFC4638] Arberg, P., Kourkouzelis, D., Duckett, M., Anschutz, T.,
and J. Moisand, "Accommodating a Maximum Transit
Unit/Maximum Receive Unit (MTU/MRU) Greater Than 1492 in
the Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC
4638, September 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Arberg
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: parberg@redback.com
Vince Mammoliti
Cisco Systems, Inc.
181 Bay Street, Suite 3400
Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T3
Canada
EMail: vince@cisco.com
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4937 IANA Considerations for PPPoE June 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, 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 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 currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Arberg & Mammoliti Informational [Page 6]