faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 5350 - IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Aler

Or Display the document by number

Network Working Group                                          J. Manner
Request for Comments: 5350                                           TKK
Updates: 2113, 3175                                          A. McDonald
Category: Standards Track                                   Siemens/Roke
                                                          September 2008

     IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   This document updates the IANA allocation rules and registry of IPv4
   and IPv6 Router Alert Option Values.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Use of the Router Alert Option Value Field ......................2
   3. IANA Considerations .............................................4
      3.1. IANA Considerations for IPv4 Router Alert Option Values ....4
      3.2. IANA Considerations for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values ....5
   4. Security Considerations .........................................5
   5. Acknowledgements ................................................6
   6. References ......................................................6
      6.1. Normative References .......................................6
      6.2. Informative References .....................................6

1.  Introduction

   The IP Router Alert Option is defined for IPv4 in [RFC2113].  A
   similar IPv6 option is defined in [RFC2711].  When one of these
   options is present in an IP datagram, it indicates that the contents
   of the datagram may be interesting to routers.  The Router Alert
   Option (RAO) is used by protocols such as the Resource Reservation
   Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] and IGMP [RFC3376].

   Both the IPv4 and IPv6 options contain a two-octet Value field to
   carry extra information.  This information can be used, for example,
   by routers to determine whether or not the packet should be more
   closely examined by them.

   There can be up to 65536 values for the RAO.  Yet, currently there is
   only a registry for IPv6 values.  No registry or allocation policies
   are defined for IPv4.

   This document updates the IANA registry for managing IPv4 and IPv6
   Router Alert Option Values, and removes one existing IPv6 Router
   Alert Option Value.

2.  Use of the Router Alert Option Value Field

   One difference between the specifications for the IPv4 and IPv6
   Router Alert Options is the way values for the Value field are
   managed.  In [RFC2113], the IPv4 Router Alert Option Value field has
   the value 0 assigned to "Router shall examine packet".  All other
   values (1-65535) are reserved.  Neither a management mechanism (e.g.,
   an IANA registry) nor an allocation policy are provided for the IPv4
   RAO values.

   The IPv6 Router Alert Option has an IANA-managed registry
   [IANA-IPv6RAO] containing allocations for the Value field.

   In [RFC3175], the IPv4 Router Alert Option Value is described as a
   parameter that provides "additional information" to the router in
   making its interception decision, rather than as a registry managed
   by IANA.  As such, this aggregation mechanism makes use of the Value
   field to carry the reservation aggregation level.  For the IPv6
   option, IANA has assigned a set of 32 values to indicate reservation
   levels.  However, since other registrations have already been made in
   that registry, these values are from 3-35 (which is actually a set of
   33 values).

   Although it might have been desirable to have the same values used in
   both the IPv4 and IPv6 registries, the initial allocations in
   [RFC2711] and the aggregation-level allocations in [RFC3175] have

   made this impossible.  The following table shows the allocations in
   the IPv6 registry and the values used in the IPv4 registry, where the
   latter have been deduced from [RFC2113] and [RFC3175] with the
   assumption that the number of aggregation levels can be limited to 32
   as in the IPv6 case.  Entries for values 6 to 31 have been elided for

   | Value    | IPv4 RAO Meaning        | IPv6 RAO Meaning             |
   | 0        | Router shall examine    | Datagram contains a          |
   |          | packet [RFC2113]        | Multicast Listener Discovery |
   |          | [RFC2205] [RFC3376]     | message [RFC2711] [RFC2710]  |
   |          | [RFC4286]               | [RFC4286]                    |
   | 1        | Aggregated Reservation  | Datagram contains RSVP       |
   |          | Nesting Level 1         | message [RFC2711] [RFC2205]  |
   |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
   | 2        | Aggregated Reservation  | Datagram contains an Active  |
   |          | Nesting Level 2         | Networks message [RFC2711]   |
   |          | [RFC3175]               | [Schwartz2000]               |
   | 3        | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          | Nesting Level 3         | Nesting Level 0 [RFC3175](*) |
   |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
   | 4        | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          | Nesting Level 4         | Nesting Level 1 [RFC3175]    |
   |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
   | 5        | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          | Nesting Level 5         | Nesting Level 2 [RFC3175]    |
   |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
   | ...      | ...                     | ...                          |
   | 32       | Aggregated Reservation  | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          | Nesting Level 32        | Nesting Level 29 [RFC3175]   |
   |          | [RFC3175]               |                              |
   | 33       | Reserved                | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          |                         | Nesting Level 30 [RFC3175]   |
   | 34       | Reserved                | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          |                         | Nesting Level 31 [RFC3175]   |
   | 35       | Reserved                | Aggregated Reservation       |
   |          |                         | Nesting Level 32(*)          |
   |          |                         | [RFC3175]                    |
   | 36-65534 | Reserved                | Reserved to IANA for future  |
   |          |                         | assignment                   |
   | 65535    | Reserved                | Reserved [IANA-IPv6RAO]      |

   Note (*): The entry in the above table for the IPv6 RAO Value of 35
   (Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level 32) has been marked due to an
   inconsistency in the text of [RFC3175], and is consequently reflected

   in the IANA registry.  In that document, the values 3-35 (i.e., 33
   values) are defined for nesting levels 0-31 (i.e., 32 levels).
   Similarly, value 3 is a duplicate, because aggregation level 0 means
   end-to-end signaling, and this already has an IPv6 RAO value "1"

   Also note that nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
   Section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in Section 6 of

   Section 3.2 of this document redefines these so that for IPv6, value
   3 is no longer used and values 4-35 represent levels 1-32.  This
   removes the above inconsistencies.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This section contains the new procedures for managing IPv4 Router
   Alert Option Values.  IANA has created a registry for IPv4 Router
   Alert Option Values (described in Section 3.1) and has updated the
   IPv6 Router Alert Option Values (described in Section 3.2).

   IP Router Alert Option Values are currently managed separately for
   IPv4 and IPv6.  This document does not change this, as there is
   little value in forcing the two registries to be aligned.

3.1.  IANA Considerations for IPv4 Router Alert Option Values

   The Value field, as specified in [RFC2113], is two octets in length.
   The Value field is registered and maintained by IANA.  The initial
   contents of this registry are:

   | Value       | Description                          | Reference |
   | 0           | Router shall examine packet          | [RFC2113] |
   | 1-32        | Aggregated Reservation Nesting Level | [RFC3175] |
   | 33-65502    | Available for assignment by the IANA |           |
   | 65503-65534 | Available for experimental use       |           |
   | 65535       | Reserved                             |           |

   New values are to be assigned via IETF Review as defined in

3.2.  IANA Considerations for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values

   The registry for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values continues to be
   maintained as specified in [RFC2711].  In addition, the following
   value has been removed from the IANA registry and reserved for
   possible future use (not to be allocated currently).  The reason is
   that it is a duplicate value; aggregation level 0 means end-to-end
   signaling, and this already has an IPv6 RAO value "1" assigned.

   | Value | Description              | Reference |
   | 3     | RSVP Aggregation level 0 | [RFC3175] |

   The following IPv6 RAO values are available for experimental use:

   | Value       | Description      | Reference |
   | 65503-65534 | Experimental use |           |

4.  Security Considerations

   Since this document is only concerned with the IANA management of the
   IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option Values registry, it raises no new
   security issues beyond those identified in [RFC2113] and [RFC2711].

   Yet, as discussed in RFC 4727 [RFC4727], production networks do not
   necessarily support the use of experimental code points in IP option
   headers.  The network scope of support for experimental values should
   be evaluated carefully before deploying any experimental RAO value
   across extended network domains, such as the public Internet.  The
   potential to disrupt the stable operation of the network hosting the
   experiment through the use of unsupported experimental code points is
   a serious consideration when planning an experiment using such code

   When experimental RAO values are deployed within an administratively
   self-contained network domain, the network administrators should
   ensure that each value is used consistently to avoid interference
   between experiments.  When experimental values are used in traffic
   that crosses multiple administrative domains, the experimenters
   should assume that there is a risk that the same values will be used
   simultaneously by other experiments, and thus that there is a

   possibility that the experiments will interfere.  Particular
   attention should be given to security threats that such interference
   might create.

5.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Robert Hancock, Martin Stiemerling, Alan Ford, and Francois
   Le Faucheur for their helpful comments on this document.

6.   References

6.1.   Normative References

   [RFC2113]        Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
                    February 1997.

   [RFC2711]        Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert
                    Option", RFC 2711, October 1999.

   [RFC3175]        Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B.
                    Davie, "Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6
                    Reservations", RFC 3175, September 2001.

   [RFC5226]        Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
                    Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
                    26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

6.2.  Informative References

   [IANA-IPv6RAO]  "IANA Registry for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
                    Router Alert Option Values", <http://www.iana.org>.

   [RFC2205]        Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
                    and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
                    -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
                    September 1997.

   [RFC2710]        Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
                    Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
                    October 1999.

   [RFC3376]        Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and
                    A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
                    Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC4286]        Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router
                    Discovery", RFC 4286, December 2005.

   [RFC4727]        Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6,
                    ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727,
                    November 2006.

   [Schwartz2000]   Schwartz, B., Jackson, A., Strayer, W., Zhou, W.,
                    Rockwell, D., and C. Partridge, "Smart Packets:
                    Applying Active Networks to Network Management", ACM
                    Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), Volume 18,
                    Issue 1, February 2000.

Authors' Addresses

   Jukka Manner
   Department of Communications and Networking (Comnet)
   Helsinki University of Technology (TKK)
   P.O. Box 3000
   Espoo  FIN-02015 TKK

   Phone: +358 9 451 2481
   EMail: jukka.manner@tkk.fi

   Andrew McDonald
   Roke Manor Research Ltd (a Siemens company)
   Old Salisbury Lane
   Romsey, Hampshire  SO51 0ZN
   United Kingdom

   EMail: andrew.mcdonald@roke.co.uk

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

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

   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


User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: