PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9436.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stig Venaas , Alvaro Retana | ||
| Last updated | 2023-08-31 (Latest revision 2023-05-24) | ||
| Replaces | draft-venaas-pim-rfc8736bis | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-01)
by Mallory Knodel
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Mike McBride | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2023-04-26 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9436 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jim Guichard | ||
| Send notices to | mmcbride7@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04
PIM S. Venaas
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: 8736 (if approved) A. Retana
Updates: 3973, 5015, 5059, 6754, 7761, Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
8364 (if approved) 24 May 2023
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 25 November 2023
PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-04
Abstract
The PIM version 2 messages share a common message header format. The
common header definition contains eight reserved bits. This document
specifies how these bits may be used by individual message types and
extends the PIM type space.
This document updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the
currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document
further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC5059,
RFC6754, and RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently reserved
bits for each PIM message.
This document obsoletes RFC8736.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 November 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PIM Header Common Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Flag Bit Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. Flag Bits for Types 13, 14, and 15 (Type Space
Extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. PIM Type Space Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The PIM version 2 messages share a common message header format
defined in the PIM Sparse Mode specification [RFC7761]. The common
header definition contains eight reserved bits. While all message
types use this common header, there is no document formally
specifying that these bits are to be used per message type.
This document refers to the bits in the Reserved field of the common
PIM header [RFC7761] as "PIM message type Flag Bits" or, simply,
"Flag Bits", and it specifies that they are to be separately used on
a per-message-type basis. It updates the "PIM Message Types"
registry to indicate the per-message-type usage.
This document updates [RFC7761] and [RFC3973] by defining the use of
the currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document
further updates [RFC7761] and [RFC3973], along with [RFC5015],
[RFC5059], [RFC6754], and [RFC8364], by specifying the use of the
currently reserved bits for each PIM message.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
The originally defined PIM message types were in the range from 0 to
15. Message type 15 had been reserved by [RFC6166] for type space
extension. In Section 5, this document specifies the use of the Flag
Bits for message types 13, 14, and 15 in order to extend the PIM type
space. The type space extension in [RFC6166] was made obsolete by
[RFC8736]. This document obsoletes [RFC8736].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. PIM Header Common Format
The common PIM header is defined in Section 4.9 of [RFC7761]. This
document updates the definition of the Reserved field and refers to
that field as "PIM message type Flag Bits" or, simply, "Flag Bits".
The updated common header format is as 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type | Flag Bits | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Updated Common Header
The Flag Bits field is defined in Section 4. All other fields remain
unchanged.
4. Flag Bit Definitions
Unless otherwise specified, all the flag bits for each PIM type are
Unassigned [RFC8126]. They MUST be set to zero on transmission, and
they MUST be ignored upon receipt. The specification of a new PIM
type MUST indicate whether the bits should be treated differently.
When defining flag bits, it is helpful to have a well-defined way of
referring to a particular bit. The most significant of the flag
bits, the bit immediately following the Type field, is referred to as
bit 7. The least significant, the bit right in front of the Checksum
field, is referred to as bit 0. This is shown in the diagram below.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type |7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0| Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flag Bits
4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap)
PIM message type 4 (Bootstrap) [RFC5059] defines flag bit 7 as No-
Forward. The usage of the bit is defined in that document. The
remaining flag bits are unassigned.
4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election)
PIM message type 10 (DF Election) [RFC5015] specifies that the four
most significant flag bits (bits 4-7) are to be used as a subtype.
The usage of those bits is defined in that document. The remaining
flag bits are unassigned.
4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM)
PIM message type 12 (PIM Flooding Mechanism) [RFC8364] defines flag
bit 7 as No-Forward. The usage of the bit is defined in that
document. The remaining flag bits are unsassigned.
4.4. Flag Bits for Types 13, 14, and 15 (Type Space Extension)
These types and the corresponding flag bits are defined in Section 5.
5. PIM Type Space Extension
This document extends types 13, 14, and 15 such that each becomes 16
new types, resulting in 48 types available for future PIM extensions.
This extension is achieved by defining a Subtype field (see Figure 3)
using the four most significant flag bits (bits 4-7). The notation
type.subtype is used to reference the new extended types. The
remaining four flag bits (bits 0-3, abbreviated as FB below) are to
be defined by each extended type.
Each of the extended types is represented by the eight bits resulting
from the concatenation of the Type and Subtype fields. No
relationship is expected or implied between extended type messages
with a common Type field.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type |Subtype| FB | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Subtypes
6. Security Considerations
This document clarifies the use of the flag bits in the common PIM
header, and it extends the PIM type space. As such, there is no
impact on security or changes to the considerations in [RFC7761] and
[RFC3973].
7. IANA Considerations
This document updates the "PIM Message Types" registry to indicate
which flag bits are defined for use by each of the PIM message types,
and changes their registration status to Unassigned, as shown in
Table 1. The registration policy remains IETF Review [RFC8126].
Assignments to this registry MUST define any non-default usage (see
Section 4) of the flag bits in addition to the type.
Extended type 15.15 is Reserved [RFC8126] for future extensions.
Because this document obsoletes RFC 8736, IANA is asked to change all
registration information that references [RFC8736] to instead
reference [this document].
The updated "PIM Message Types" registry is shown below.
+============+===============+=================+====================+
| Type | Name | Flag Bits | Reference |
+============+===============+=================+====================+
| 0 | Hello | 0-7: | [RFC3973][RFC7761] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 1 | Register | 0-7: | [RFC7761] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 2 | Register Stop | 0-7: | [RFC7761] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 3 | Join/Prune | 0-7: | [RFC3973][RFC7761] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 4 | Bootstrap | 0-6: | [RFC5059][RFC7761] |
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
| | | Unassigned | |
| | +-----------------+--------------------+
| | | 7: No- | [RFC5059] |
| | | Forward | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 5 | Assert | 0-7: | [RFC3973][RFC7761] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 6 | Graft | 0-7: | [RFC3973] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 7 | Graft-Ack | 0-7: | [RFC3973] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 8 | Candidate RP | 0-7: | [RFC7761] |
| | Advertisement | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 9 | State Refresh | 0-7: | [RFC3973] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 10 | DF Election | 0-3: | [RFC5015] |
| | | Unassigned | |
| | +-----------------+--------------------+
| | | 4-7: | [RFC5015] |
| | | Subtype | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 11 | ECMP Redirect | 0-7: | [RFC6754] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 12 | PIM Flooding | 0-6: | [RFC8364] |
| | Mechanism | Unassigned | |
| | +-----------------+--------------------+
| | | 7: No- | [RFC8364] |
| | | Forward | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 13.0-15.14 | Unassigned | 0-3: | [This document] |
| | | Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| 15.15 | Reserved | 0-3: | [This document] |
| | | Reserved | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+--------------------+
Table 1: Updated PIM Message Types Registry
The unassigned types above, as explained in Section 5, use the
extended type notation of type.subtype. Each extended type only has
4 flag bits available. New extended message types should be assigned
consecutively, starting with 13.0, then 13.1, etc.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973,
January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3973>.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.
[RFC5059] Bhaskar, N., Gall, A., Lingard, J., and S. Venaas,
"Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol Independent
Multicast (PIM)", RFC 5059, DOI 10.17487/RFC5059, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5059>.
[RFC6166] Venaas, S., "A Registry for PIM Message Types", RFC 6166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6166, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6166>.
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits May 2023
[RFC6754] Cai, Y., Wei, L., Ou, H., Arya, V., and S. Jethwani,
"Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath
(ECMP) Redirect", RFC 6754, DOI 10.17487/RFC6754, October
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6754>.
[RFC8364] Wijnands, IJ., Venaas, S., Brig, M., and A. Jonasson, "PIM
Flooding Mechanism (PFM) and Source Discovery (SD)",
RFC 8364, DOI 10.17487/RFC8364, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8364>.
[RFC8736] Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space
Extension and Reserved Bits", RFC 8736,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8736, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8736>.
Authors' Addresses
Stig Venaas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: stig@cisco.com
Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: alvaro.retana@futurewei.com
Venaas & Retana Expires 25 November 2023 [Page 8]