💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6328.txt captured on 2024-03-21 at 17:40:29.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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]