1 / 4

Proposal for Moving IANA Registries for MPLS Loss and Delay Measurement

This document proposes restructuring the IANA registries related to MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) Loss and Delay Measurement. It emphasizes the need to relocate existing registries to clearer locations, while addressing message types, reply modes, and various TLVs (Type-Length-Value structures). Additionally, it suggests creating new sub-registries for measurement timestamps, loss/delay measurement control codes, and provides specific proposals for registry organization. The proposal also aims to alter RFC 6374 and encourages working group involvement for document approval.

olina
Télécharger la présentation

Proposal for Moving IANA Registries for MPLS Loss and Delay Measurement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. draft-andersson-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00 Fairly well baked and simple

  2. From the LSP IANA registry

  3. Registries at the wrong place • Message Types • Reply Modes • Return Codes • TLVs ◦ Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1 and 16 ◦ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9 ◦ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11 ◦ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20 ◦ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 21 • Measurement Timestamp Type • Loss/Delay Measurement Control Code: Query Codes • Loss/Delay Measurement Control Code: Response Codes • MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object • Global Flags • Downstream Mapping Address Type Registry

  4. Next step • Proposes a new registry for LM and DM sub-registries. • Changes RFC 6374 (where to find the registries). • I think this need to be a working group document, since it changes a Standard Track RFC. • Can we make it a wg doc?

More Related