Internet-Draft Peter Arberg Intended status: Standards Track Redback Networks Expires: August 17, 2008 February 17, 2008 Vendor Specific Message for ANCP. draft-arberg-ancp-vendorspecific-00 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 August 17, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document is aimed at presenting Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) with a vendor specific protocol extension. Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 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 . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2. Vendor Specific Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 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]. 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 The one which could be interesting to ANCP, is the Message Type Name Space that GSMPv3 divides into four ranges as follows: Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 2008 - 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 define a new capability type for vendor specific data as part of the ANCP protocol capability negotiations, and further more define a separate vendor specific message extension. 4.1 Vendor Specific Capability Negotiation Capability Type : Vendor-Specific Data = 0x06 (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. Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 2008 4.2 Vendor Specific Extensions GSMPv3 [1] "Vendor Specific" message (type 255) MUST be used by the BRAS and the Access Node to exchange vendor specific data as part of the ANCP protocol communication. The Vendor Specific message uses the GSMPv3 [1] 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 ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | Length | Enterprise Number1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | DataLen1 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + \ Vendor Specific Data1 \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Enterprise Number2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DataLen2 | Vendor Specific Data2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ \ . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Message Type for Vendor Specific messages is 255 (TBD). Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 2008 The one-byte Length field is the length of the data carried in the Message Body in bytes. The length includes the length of the first Enterprise Number; the minimum length is 4 bytes. "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. DataLenN is the length of the data associated with the Enterprise Number. The Vendor Specific Data is an opaque sequence of bytes. The Vendor-Specific Message includes at least one Enterprise Number and carries opaque data defined by the organization identified by the Enterprise Number. The ANCP end node, Access Node or BRAS, 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 this message type are encouraged to document their usage in order to make interoperability possible. 5. Security Considerations The BRAS and DSLAMs 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. Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 2008 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- 02.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. Authors' Addresses Peter Arberg Redback Networks an Ericsson Company 300 Holger Way San Jose, CA 95134 USA Email: parberg@redback.com Arberg Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Vendor Specific Message for ANCP February 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 August 17, 2008 [Page 7]