Network Working GroupJ. Arkko
Internet-DraftEricsson
Updates:C. Pignataro
826, 1044, 951, 2131, 2132, 2225, 2834, 2835, 3315, 4338, 4361, 4701Cisco Systems
(if approved)November 28, 2008
Intended status: Standards Track 
Expires: June 1, 2009 


IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-02

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 June 1, 2009.

Abstract

This document specifies the IANA guidelines for allocating new values in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP). This document also reserves some numbers for experimentation purposes. The changes also affect other protocols that employ values from the ARP name spaces.



1.  Introduction

This document specifies the IANA guidelines [RFC5226] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.) for allocating new values for various fields in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC0826] (Plummer, D., “Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address for transmission on Ethernet hardware,” November 1982.). The change is also applicable to extensions of ARP that use the same message format, such as [RFC0903] (Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, “Reverse Address Resolution Protocol,” June 1984.) and [RFC2390] (Bradley, T., Brown, C., and A. Malis, “Inverse Address Resolution Protocol,” September 1998.).

The change also affects other protocols that employ values from the ARP name spaces. For instance, the ARP hardware address type (ar$hrd) number space is also used in the "htype" (hardware address type) fields in Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) [RFC0951] (Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, “Bootstrap Protocol,” September 1985.) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] (Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” March 1997.), as well as in the "hardware type" field in the DHCP Unique Identifiers in DHCPv6 [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.). These protocols are therefore affected by the update in the IANA rules. Other affected specifications include the specialized address resolution mechanisms in HYPERchannel [RFC1044] (Hardwick, K. and J. Lekashman, “Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel: Protocol specification,” February 1988.), DHCP options [RFC2132] (Alexander, S. and R. Droms, “DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions,” March 1997.), [RFC4361] (Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, “Node-specific Client Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4),” February 2006.), ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) ARP [RFC2225] (Laubach, M. and J. Halpern, “Classical IP and ARP over ATM,” April 1998.), HARP (High-Performance Parallel Interface ARP) [RFC2834] (Pittet, J., “ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800,” May 2000.), [RFC2835] (Pittet, J., “IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400 (GSN),” May 2000.), FC (Fibre Channel) ARP [RFC4338] (DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, “Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel,” January 2006.), and DNS Resource Records [RFC4701] (Stapp, M., Lemon, T., and A. Gustafsson, “A DNS Resource Record (RR) for Encoding Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Information (DHCID RR),” October 2006.).

The IANA guidelines are given in Section 2 (IANA Considerations). Previously, no IANA guidance existed for such allocations.

This document also reserves some numbers for experimentation purposes. These numbers are given in Section 3 (Allocations Defined in This Document).



2.  IANA Considerations

The following rules apply to the fields of ARP:

ar$hrd (16 bits) Hardware address space

Requests for individual new ar$hrd values are made through First Come First Served [RFC5226] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.). Requests for ar$hrd values below 256 or a batch of several new values are made through Expert Review [RFC5226]. Note that certain protocols, such as BOOTP and DHCPv4 employ these values within a 8 bit field. The expert should determine that the need to allocate the new values exists and that the existing values are insufficient to represent the new hardware address types. The expert should also determine the applicability of the request, and assign values higher than 255 for requests that do not apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4. Similarly, the expert should assign one-octet values for requests that clearly apply to BOOTP/DHCPv4 but not ARP, as for example the "IPsec tunnel" with value 31 [RFC3456] (Patel, B., Aboba, B., Kelly, S., and V. Gupta, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4) Configuration of IPsec Tunnel Mode,” January 2003.). Conversely, ARP-only uses should favor 2-octet values.
ar$pro (16 bits) Protocol address space

These numbers share the Ethertype space. The Ethertype space is administered as described in [RFC5342] (Eastlake. , D., “IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters,” September 2008.).
ar$op (16 bits) Opcode

Requests for new ar$op values are made through IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC5226] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.).


3.  Allocations Defined in This Document

When testing new protocol extension ideas, it is often necessary to use an actual constant in order to use the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. This document reserves the following numbers for experimentation purposes in ARP:

Note that [RFC5342] (Eastlake. , D., “IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters,” September 2008.), Section B.2 lists two Ethertypes that can be used for experimental purposes.

In addition, for both ar$hrd and ar$op the values 0 and 65535 are marked as reserved. This means that they are not available for allocation.



4.  Security Considerations

This specification does not change the security properties of the affected protocols.

However, a few words are necessary about the use of the experimental code points defined in Section 3 (Allocations Defined in This Document). Potentially harmful side-effects from the use of the experimental values needs to be carefully evaluated before deploying any experiment across networks that the owner of the experiment does not entirely control. Guidance given in [RFC3692] (Narten, T., “Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful,” January 2004.) about the use of experimental values needs to be followed.



5.  Acknowledgments

The lack of any current rules has come up as new values were requested from IANA. The author would like to thank Michelle Cotton in particular for bringing this issue up. When no rules exist, IANA consults the IESG for approval of the new values. The purpose of this specification is to establish the rules and allow IANA to operate based on the rules, without requiring confirmation from the IESG. The author would also like to thank Brian Carpenter, Thomas Narten, Scott Bradner, Donald Eastlake, Andrew G. Malis, Brian Haberman, and Dave Thaler for feedback.



6.  References



6.1. Normative References

[RFC0826] Plummer, D., “Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address for transmission on Ethernet hardware,” STD 37, RFC 826, November 1982 (TXT).
[RFC0951] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, “Bootstrap Protocol,” RFC 951, September 1985 (TXT).
[RFC1044] Hardwick, K. and J. Lekashman, “Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel: Protocol specification,” STD 45, RFC 1044, February 1988 (TXT).
[RFC2131] Droms, R., “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” RFC 2131, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, “DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions,” RFC 2132, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2225] Laubach, M. and J. Halpern, “Classical IP and ARP over ATM,” RFC 2225, April 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC2834] Pittet, J., “ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800,” RFC 2834, May 2000 (TXT).
[RFC2835] Pittet, J., “IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400 (GSN),” RFC 2835, May 2000 (TXT).
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” RFC 3315, July 2003 (TXT).
[RFC3692] Narten, T., “Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful,” BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004 (TXT).
[RFC4338] DeSanti, C., Carlson, C., and R. Nixon, “Transmission of IPv6, IPv4, and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Packets over Fibre Channel,” RFC 4338, January 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4361] Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, “Node-specific Client Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4),” RFC 4361, February 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4701] Stapp, M., Lemon, T., and A. Gustafsson, “A DNS Resource Record (RR) for Encoding Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Information (DHCID RR),” RFC 4701, October 2006 (TXT).
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008 (TXT).
[RFC5342] Eastlake. , D., “IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters,” BCP 141, RFC 5342, September 2008 (TXT).


6.2. Informative References

[RFC0903] Finlayson, R., Mann, T., Mogul, J., and M. Theimer, “Reverse Address Resolution Protocol,” STD 38, RFC 903, June 1984 (TXT).
[RFC2390] Bradley, T., Brown, C., and A. Malis, “Inverse Address Resolution Protocol,” RFC 2390, September 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML).
[RFC3456] Patel, B., Aboba, B., Kelly, S., and V. Gupta, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4) Configuration of IPsec Tunnel Mode,” RFC 3456, January 2003 (TXT).


Appendix A.  Changes from the Original RFCs

This document specifies only the IANA rules associated with various fields in ARP. The specification of these rules also affects the allocation of corresponding fields in protocols listed in Section 1 (Introduction) that share the registry. This document does not make any changes in the operation of these protocols themselves.



Authors' Addresses

  Jari Arkko
  Ericsson
  Jorvas 02420
  Finland
Email:  jari.arkko@piuha.net
  
  Carlos Pignataro
  Cisco Systems
  7200-12 Kit Creek Road
  PO Box 14987
  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
  USA
Email:  cpignata@cisco.com


Full Copyright Statement

Intellectual Property