RFC 4446
IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)
RFC 4446 💖 IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)
okay bestie, let's get into it 🎀 This is a Best Current Practice (BCP 116), written by L. Martini at Cisco Systems Inc. and published in April 2006 as RFC 4446. It sits in the Network Working Group. It's basically the official "who gets which number" handbook for PWE3 protocols in the IANA registries, and the title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so no drama there ✨
Status of This Memo
This is a Best Current Practice for the Internet Community, and the authors want your discussion and suggestions for making it better 🌸 Distribution of this memo is unlimited, so share away 💅
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This doc hands out the fixed pseudowire identifier and some other fixed protocol values for protocols defined in the Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge (PWE3) working group. It also includes the detailed instructions IANA follows when making allocations 🦋
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 .....................................71. Introduction ✨
this is the part where the whole vibe gets set 🔮 Most of the new IANA registries, plus their allocation processes, for protocols defined in the PWE3 IETF working group live right here. The registries are generally split into three main ranges: one allocated by IETF consensus per [RFC2434], one allocated through the expert review process per [RFC2434], and one allocated first come, first served and reserved for vendor proprietary allocations. Now the big rule 🚨 vendor proprietary types MUST NOT be registered for IETF standards or extensions thereof, whether they're still in development or already done. No sneaking vendor stuff into the official standards, periodt 💅
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 read as described in [RFC2119]. Those are the official BCP 14 keywords, so when you see them in caps, they mean exactly what they say 🎀
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has created several registries, and they're all described in the paragraphs that follow 🌈 Each registry holds numeric values used to identify data types. In every one of these registries, the value 0 is reserved and MUST not be used. do not touch the zero, bestie 🙅♀️
3.1. Expert Review Directives
Okay so several registries in this doc call for an expert review process per [RFC2434]. The expert should keep a few things in mind:
- 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 it within 10 business days from when they received the expert review request. Timeline check ⏰ no ghosting allowed 👑
3.2. MPLS Pseudowire Type
IANA set up the "MPLS Pseudowire Type" registry 🧚 It uses 15-bit values, and the ranges go like this:
- PW Type values 1 through 30 are specified in this document.
- PW Type values 31 through 1024 get assigned by IANA using the "Expert Review" policy from [RFC2434].
- PW Type values 1025 through 4096 and 32767 are allocated using the IETF consensus policy from [RFC2434].
- PW Type values 4097 through 32766 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions, and IANA assigns them using the "First Come First Served" policy from [RFC2434].
Every assignment from this registry REQUIRED a Pseudowire Type description... wait, sorry, let me say it properly: a Pseudowire Type description is required for any assignment from this registry 💖 For the vendor-proprietary range, you also need a citation of a person or company name. A document reference should also be provided.
Here are the initial Pseudowire Type value allocations 🍓
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]3.3. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV Type
IANA has to set up the "Pseudowire Interface Parameter Sub-TLV types" registry 🎀 It uses 8-bit values, and the ranges work like this:
- 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 from [RFC2434].
- Sub-TLV types 65 through 127 and 255 are allocated using the IETF consensus policy from [RFC2434].
- Sub-TLV type values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions, and IANA assigns them using the "First Come First Served" policy from [RFC2434].
Any assignment requested from this registry requires a description of up to 54 characters. Keep it short and sweet ✨
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. Math check passed 🧮
For the vendor-proprietary extensions range, you also need a citation of a person or company name. A document reference should also be provided.
Here are the initial Pseudowire Interface Parameter Sub-TLV type allocations 🌸
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. Don't forget to count the type and length fields 🙈
3.4. Attachment Identifiers
3.4.1. Attachment Individual Identifier Type
IANA has to set up the "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type" registry 🦋 It uses 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 from [RFC2434]. AII Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are allocated using the IETF consensus policy from [RFC2434]. AII type values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions, and IANA assigns them using the "First Come First Served" policy from [RFC2434].
Any assignment requested from this registry requires a description of up to 54 characters. For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a decimal integer. For the vendor-proprietary range, you need a citation of a person or company name, and a document reference should also be provided.
Here are the initial Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type allocations 💜
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 "Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type" registry 🌈 It uses 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 from [RFC2434]. AGI Type values 65 through 127 and 255 are allocated using the IETF consensus policy from [RFC2434]. AGI type values 128 through 254 are reserved for vendor-proprietary extensions, and IANA assigns them using the "First Come First Served" policy from [RFC2434].
Any assignment requested from this registry requires a description of up to 54 characters. For each allocation, a length field MUST also be specified as a decimal integer. The vendor-proprietary range needs a citation of a person or company name, and a document reference should also be provided.
Here are the initial Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type allocations ⭐
AGI Type Length Description Reference
===================================================================
0x01 8 AGI encoded as Route Distinguisher [SIG]part 1 done, more coming in part 2 🦋💖
3.5. Pseudowire Status ✨
okay so bestie, IANA has to set up a registry called "Pseudowire Status Codes" 📋 and these are bit strings that are 32 bits long 🔢. Status bits 0 through 4 are already defined in this document 💅. Status bits 5 through 31 are for IANA to assign later, using the "Expert Review" policy from [RFC2434] 🧐.
Any request for an allocation from this registry needs a description of up to 65 characters 📝. Keep it short and sweet, babe 💖.
Here are the initial Pseudowire Status Code value allocations, and honestly they're iconic 🦋:
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] 🌈. Yep, same place, no cap 🫶.
4. Security Considerations 🔐
Okay, this part is kind of serious, so listen up 👑. This document only specifies fixed identifiers. It does NOT specify the protocols that carry the encapsulated packets across the network 😭. Each of those protocols might have its own security issues, but those issues aren't affected by the identifiers defined here 💀.
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. 🌈
- [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 💌
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). 💜
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc4446 2006-04
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms