💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc6166.gmi captured on 2022-07-16 at 22:47:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obsoleted by:
Keywords: IANA, Protocol Independent Multicast
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Venaas
Request for Comments: 6166 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track April 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
A Registry for PIM Message Types
Abstract
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a
registry for PIM message types. It specifies the initial content of
the registry, based on existing RFCs specifying PIM message types.
It also specifies a procedure for registering new types.
In addition to this, one message type is reserved, and may be used
for a future extension of the message type space.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6166.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Venaas Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6166 A Registry for PIM Message Types April 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Security Considerations .........................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
3.1. Initial Registry ...........................................3
3.2. Assignment of New Message Types ............................3
4. Acknowledgements ................................................3
5. Informative References ..........................................3
1. Introduction
Apart from this document, there is no existing document specifying a
registry for PIM message types. PIM version 1 made use of IGMP
[RFC1112], and there is an IGMP registry [IGMPREG] listing the
message types used by PIM version 1. PIM version 2, however, is not
based on IGMP, and a separate PIM message type registry is needed.
There are currently several RFCs specifying new PIM version 2 message
types that should be in this new registry. They are the RFCs for PIM
Dense Mode [RFC3973], PIM Sparse Mode [RFC4601], and Bidirectional
PIM [RFC5015].
This document specifies the initial content of the new PIM message
type registry, based on those existing RFCs. This document also
specifies a procedure for registering new PIM message types.
In addition to this, this document reserves one message type. This
type may be used for a future extension of the message type space.
The current message type space is only 4 bits, so it is not unlikely
that this will be needed. How exactly the extension should be done
is left to a future document.
2. Security Considerations
This document only creates an IANA registry. There may be a security
benefit in a well-known place for finding information on which PIM
message types are valid and how they are used. Apart from that,
there are no security considerations.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has created a PIM message type registry. It has been placed in
the "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)" branch of the tree. Each
entry in the registry consists of a message type, a message name, and
references to the documents defining the type. The message type is a
4-bit integer with possible values from 0 to 15.
Venaas Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6166 A Registry for PIM Message Types April 2011
3.1. Initial Registry
The initial content of the registry should be as follows.
Type Name Reference
------ ---------------------------------------- -------------------
0 Hello [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
1 Register [RFC4601]
2 Register Stop [RFC4601]
3 Join/Prune [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
4 Bootstrap [RFC4601]
5 Assert [RFC3973] [RFC4601]
6 Graft [RFC3973]
7 Graft-Ack [RFC3973]
8 Candidate RP Advertisement [RFC4601]
9 State Refresh [RFC3973]
10 DF Election [RFC5015]
11-14 Unassigned
15 Reserved (for extension of type space) this document
3.2. Assignment of New Message Types
Assignment of new message types is done according to the "IETF
Review" model; see [RFC5226].
4. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Toerless Eckert for his suggestion to reserve a type for
future extension of the message type space. Also thanks to Mykyta
Yevstifeyev for reviewing the document and proposing improvements to
the text.
5. Informative References
[IGMPREG] IANA, "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Type
Numbers - per [RFC3228], [BCP57]", <http://www.iana.org/>.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
Venaas Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6166 A Registry for PIM Message Types April 2011
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Author's Address
Stig Venaas
Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: stig@cisco.com
Venaas Standards Track [Page 4]