<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<rfc submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="yes" number="7385" updates="6514"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PMSI IANA registry">IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel&nbsp;Type&nbsp;Code&nbsp;Points</title>
  
    
    <author fullname="Loa Andersson" initials="L." surname="Andersson">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city/>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country/>
        </postal>

        <email>loa@mail01.huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="George Swallow" initials="G. S." surname="Swallow">
     <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
     <address>
      <email>swallow@cisco.com</email>
     </address>
    </author>

    <date month="October" year="2014"/>



    <abstract>


      <t>
      RFC 6514 created a space of Tunnel Type code points for a new
      BGP attribute called the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel
      (PMSI Tunnel) attribute".  However, the RFC did not create a
      corresponding IANA registry.
      </t>
      
      <t>
      There now is need to make further code point allocations from this 
      name space. This document serves to update RFC 6514 in that it creates 
      an IANA registry for
      that purpose.
      </t>
      
    </abstract>

  </front>

  <middle>
  <!-- section 1 -->
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
    
     <t>
      In 'BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs'
      <xref target="RFC6514"/>, an optional transitive BGP attribute called the
      "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) attribute" is 
      specified. This BGP attribute uses an octet field to specify the PMSI
      tunnel type.  RFC 6514 allocates the values 0-7. 
     </t>
     
     <t>
       There is now a need to make further code point allocations from
      this name space.  In particular, "Inter-Area P2MP Segmented LSPs"
      <xref target="SEAMLESS-MCAST"/> needs to make such
      an allocation. However, the RFC did not create an
      IANA registry for these code points.
     </t>
    
     <t>
      This document creates a new IANA registry called "P-Multicast
      Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" for these
      code points.  The registry is created in the "Border Gateway
      Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.
     </t>
     
     <t>
      Creating this registry is an update of RFC 6514 <xref target="RFC6514"/>.
     </t>
    
     </section>
      
    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
    
    <t>
     This document simply creates an IANA registry from a table in RFC
     6514.  Thus, there are no security concerns.
    </t>
    
    </section>

     
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
    
    <t>
     IANA has created a new registry called "P-Multicast Service 
      Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" in the "Border Gateway 
      Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.
    </t>
    
    <t>
     The allocation policy for values 0x00 to 0xFA is IETF Review 
     <xref target="RFC5226"/>.  Values
     0xFB to 0xFE are experimental and are not to be assigned. 0xFF is
     reserved, the status of 0xFF may only be changed through Standards
     Action <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
    </t>
    
    
    <t>
    The initial registry should appear as:
    </t>
    <t>
      <figure anchor="figure-f">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Value        Meaning                        Reference

   0x00         no tunnel information present  [RFC6514]
   0x01         RSVP-TE P2MP LSP               [RFC6514]
   0x02         mLDP P2MP LSP                  [RFC6514]
   0x03         PIM-SSM Tree                   [RFC6514]
   0x04         PIM-SM Tree                    [RFC6514]
   0x05         BIDIR-PIM Tree                 [RFC6514]
   0x06         Ingress Replication            [RFC6514]
   0x07         mLDP MP2MP LSP                 [RFC6514]
   0x08 - 0xFA  Unassigned
   0xFB - 0xFE  Experimental                   [RFC7385]
   0xFF         Reserved                       [RFC7385]
      
      ]]></artwork> </figure>
    </t>
    
    
    </section>    


    
  </middle>

  <back>
 
    <references title="Normative References">


<reference anchor='RFC5226' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226'>

<front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Narten' fullname='T. Narten'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='H.' surname='Alvestrand' fullname='H. Alvestrand'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2008' month='May' />
<abstract>
<t>Many protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).&lt;/t>&lt;t> In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.&lt;/t>&lt;t> This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='26' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5226' />

</reference>





<reference anchor='RFC6514' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514'>

<front>
<title>BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs</title>
<author initials='R.' surname='Aggarwal' fullname='R. Aggarwal'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='E.' surname='Rosen' fullname='E. Rosen'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='T.' surname='Morin' fullname='T. Morin'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='Y.' surname='Rekhter' fullname='Y. Rekhter'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='February' />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the BGP encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs, as specified in RFC 6513. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6514' />

</reference>


    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">

<!--      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast"?>; ID Exists -->



<reference anchor='SEAMLESS-MCAST'>
<front>
<title>Inter-Area P2MP Segmented LSPs</title>

<author initials='Y' surname='Rekhter' fullname='Yakov Rekhter'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='R' surname='Aggarwal' fullname='Rahul Aggarwal'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='July' day='2' year='2014' />

<abstract><t>This document describes procedures for building inter-area point-to- multipoint (P2MP) segmented service LSPs by partitioning such LSPs into intra-area segments and using BGP as the inter-area routing and label distribution protocol. Within each IGP area the intra-area segments are either carried over intra-area P2MP LSPs, using P2MP LSP hierarchy, or instantiated using ingress replication.  The intra-area P2MP LSPs may be signaled using P2MP RSVP-TE or P2MP mLDP. If ingress replication is used within an IGP area, then (multipoint-to-point) LDP LSPs or (point-to-point) RSVP-TE LSPs may be used in the IGP area. The applications/services that use such inter-area service LSPs may be BGP Multicast VPN, VPLS multicast, or global table multicast over MPLS.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Work in Progress,' value='draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mcast-14' />

</reference>


    </references>
<!--[rfced] Please note that the "Appendix" designation will be
removed from the "Acknowledgements" section header in post-xml2rfc
processing.

-->
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>
      The authors want to thank Adrian Farrel for unwavering support and our 
      L3VPN, MPLS, and IDR co-chairs for swift processing of this document.      
      </t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
