Internet DRAFT - draft-arberg-ancp-vendorspecific
draft-arberg-ancp-vendorspecific
Internet-Draft Peter Arberg
Intended status: Standards Track Redback Networks
Expires: May 1, 2009
November 1, 2008
Vendor Specific Message for ANCP.
draft-arberg-ancp-vendorspecific-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This document is aimed at presenting Access Node Control Protocol
(ANCP) with vendor specific protocol extensions.
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Vendor specific messages in GSMPv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Vendor specific messages in ANCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Vendor Specific Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Vendor Specific Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Vendor Specific Extension TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
This document is aimed at presenting ANCP with a vendor specific
protocol extension. GSMPv3 [1] which is used as foundation for the
ANCP protocol [2] already has vendor specific functionality defined,
but since ANCP defines new capability negotiations and only include
few specific messages from GSMPv3, it is necessary to define a new
vendor specific message handling for ANCP.
This proposal aims at collecting feedback from the ANCP community in
order to work towards consensus. Eventually, text derived from the
material in section 4. would be intended to be incorporated in the
"ANCP Protocol I-D" [2], or it can continue as a separate internet
draft.
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 interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Vendor specific messages in GSMPv3
GSMPv3 [1] defines vendor specific ranges for vendor private
extensions to the GSMPv3 protocol. GSMPv3 defines vendor specific
ranges for the following functionalities:
- Message Type Name Space
- Label Type Name Space
- Failure Response Message Name Space
- Model Type Name Space
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
The one which could be interesting to ANCP, is the Message Type Name
Space that GSMPv3 divides into four ranges as follows:
- Message Types 0-99.
Message Types in this range are part of the GSMPv3 base
protocol. Message types in this range are allocated
through an IETF consensus action [19].
- Message Types 100-199.
Message Types in this range are Specification Required
[19]. Message Types using this range must be documented
in an RFC or other permanent and readily available
references.
- Message Types 200-249.
Message Types in this range are Specification Required
[19] and are intended for Abstract and Resource Model
Extension Messages. Message Types using this range must
be documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
available references.
- Message Types 250-255.
Message Types in this range are reserved for vendor
private extensions and are the responsibility of
individual vendors. IANA management of this range of the
Message Type Name Space is unnecessary.
4. Vendor specific messages in ANCP
The proposal in this document is to include ANCP vendor specific
messages. The vendor specific messages can be used in two different
ways.
The first option is via a new defined capability type for
vendor specific data as part of the ANCP protocol capability
negotiations, and a new defined separate vendor specific message
type.
The second option is via the already defined capability types, using
the ANCP Extension TLV as defined in "ANCP Protocol I-D" [2], but
with a new vendor specific Extensions TLV.
Both options have advantages, the first solution will provide both
ANCP end-points with a well known vendor specific capability, and as
such both end-point know if the other one supports the proposed
vendor specific messages.
The second solution will provide an easy extension to existing ANCP
capability types, but it do not provide the end-point with knowledge
of the other end-points vendor specific capability.
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
4.1 Vendor Specific Capability Negotiation
A new vendor specific capability type will be added to the existing
ANCP capability negotiations described in "ANCP Protocol I-D" [2].
Capability Type : Vendor-Specific Data = 0xFF (TBD)
Length (in bytes) : multiply of 4.
Every Enterprise with vendor specific data supported will add 4
bytes to the length field.
Capability Data : list of Enterprise numbers.
"Enterprise NumberN" is a vendor's Enterprise Number as registered
with IANA [3]. It is a four-byte integer value in network byte-
order.
4.2 Vendor Specific Message Extensions
GSMPv3 [1] "Vendor Specific" message (type 255) MUST be used by
the NAS and the Access Node to exchange vendor specific data
as part of the ANCP protocol communication.
The Vendor Specific message uses the ANCP[2] basic defined message
format as shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vers | Sub | Message Type | Result| Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Partition ID | Transaction Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I| SubMessage Number | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Message Body ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. ANCP basic defined message format.
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
The Message body in the ANCP vendor specific message MUST follow
the format shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor 1 Data-Length | Vendor 1 Specific Data \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Vendor 1 Specific Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor 2 Data-Length | Vendor 2 Specific Data \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Vendor 2 Specific Data \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ \
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. ANCP vendor specific message body definition.
The Message Type for Vendor Specific messages is 255 (TBD).
"Enterprise NumberN" is a vendor's Enterprise Number as registered
with IANA [3]. It is a four-byte integer value in network byte-
order. The Enterprise number used in the Vendor Specific message
MUST match the numbers agreed upon in the capability negotiation.
If an Enterprise number used in the Vendor Specific Message Body is
different from the capability negotiations then the vendor specific
data for this Enterprise number MAY silently be discard by the
receiver.
"Data-Length" is a two-byte length field of the vendor specific data
carried in the Message Body for "Enterprise NumberN". Data-Length
is counted in bytes. The minimum length is 6 bytes, as the length
always as a minimum will include the length of the Enterprise Number
and the Data-Length field.
The Vendor-Specific Message includes at least one Enterprise Number
one Data-Length and carries opaque data defined by the organization
identified by the Enterprise Number. The ANCP end node, Access Node
or NAS MAY include data associated with more than one vendor's
Enterprise Number within a single instance of the Vendor Specific
Message.
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
4.3 Vendor Specific Message Extension TLV
"ANCP Protocol I-D" [2] defines an ANCP Extension TLV used in the
ANCP capability types. The format of the "Extension Value" field for
Tech Type "DSL" is as follows :
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Message Type | Tech Type | Block Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Extension Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. ANCP Extension TLV message definition.
The "Extension Value" contains one or more TLVs to identify a DSL
line and define its characteristics. A TLV can consist of multiple
sub-TLVs.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| # of TLVs | Extension block length (bytes)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. ANCP Extension TLV value definition.
The General format of a TLV is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
~ Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5. General TLV format used in ANCP Extension TLV message.
The individual fields and rules of the Extention TLV are documented
in the "ANCP Protocol I-D" [2].
The Extension TLV Type for Vendor Specific messages is 255 (TBD).
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
The vendor specific Extension TLV is structured similar to the
vendor specific message type defined in Figure 2.
"Enterprise NumberN" is a vendor's Enterprise Number as registered
with IANA [3]. It is a four-byte integer value in network byte-
order. If unknown Enterprise number, the "Enterprise NumberN" data
MUST be silently discard.
"Data-Length" is a two-byte length field of the vendor specific data
carried in the Message Body for "Enterprise NumberN". Data-Length
is counted in bytes. The minimum length is 6 bytes, as the length
always as a minimum will include the length of the Enterprise Number
and the Data-Length field.
The Vendor-Specific Message includes at least one Enterprise Number
one Data-Length and carries opaque data defined by the organization
identified by the Enterprise Number. The ANCP end node, Access Node
or NAS MAY include data associated with more than one vendor's
Enterprise Number within a single instance of the Vendor Specific
Message.
Of course, the Vendor-Specific data are vendor-specific. This
specification does not establish any requirements on the data in the
message. Vendors who make use of the vendor specific message type
or the vendor specific Extension TLV are encouraged to document
their usage in order to make interoperability possible, and SHOULD
use a well defined TLV message structure as shown below:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Type | Vendor-Length | Vendor-Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6. TLV format used in vendor specific message.
Vendor-Type
The Vendor-Type field is one octet in length and contains the
sub-attribute type.
Vendor-Length
The Vendor-Length field is one octet and indicates the length of
the vendor sub-attribute, including the Vendor-Type,
Vendor-Length, and Value fields.
Vendor-Value
The Vendor-Value field is zero or more octets and contains
information specific to the sub-attribute. The format and length
of the Value field is determined by the Vendor-Type and
Vendor-Length fields.
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
5. Security Considerations
The NAS and Access Node are implicitly in a trusted domain, so
security for vendor specific messages in ANCP do not put forth other
security considerations not already mentioned in the ANCP Protocol
draft [2].
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new capability type as well as a new message
type which need to be reserved with IANA, as part of the overall
ANCP Protocol [2] IANA reservation.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Doria, A. et al, "General Switch Management Protocol - V3"
(GSMPv3), RFC 3292, June 2002.
[2] S. Wadhwa, J. Moisand, .. " Protocol for Access Node Control
Mechanism in Broadband Networks", draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-
03.txt
[3] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers (http://www.iana.org/
assignments/enterprise-numbers.html)".
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8. Acknowledgements
I will like to thank Wojciech Dec for his comments and contribution
to this document.
Authors' Addresses
Peter Arberg
Redback Networks an Ericsson Company
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: parberg@redback.com
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP November 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Arberg Expires May 1, 2008 [Page 9]
