Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Haberman, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9778 JHU APL
BCP: 57 March 2025
Obsoletes: 3228 (if approved) 27 August 2024
Intended status:
Category: Best Current Practice
Expires: 28 February 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721
IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols
draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07
Abstract
This document specifies revised IANA Considerations considerations for the Internet
Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and the Multicast Listener Discovery
(MLD) protocol. This document specifies the guidance provided to
IANA to manage values associated with various fields within the
protocol headers of the group management protocols.
This document obsoletes RFC 3228 and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and
IPv6 group management protocols.
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 memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 28 February 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9778.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 2025 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Type and Code Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2.
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contributors
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The following sections that follow describe the allocation guidelines
associated with the specified fields within the Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis] [RFC9776] and the Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] [RFC9777] headers. Some of these registries were
created previously, while others are created by this document.
This document obsoletes [RFC3228] and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and
IPv6 group management protocols.
1.1. 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.
2. IANA Considerations
The registration procedures used in this document are defined in
[RFC8126].
2.1. Type and Code Fields
2.1.1. Internet Group Management Protocol
The IGMP header contains the following fields that carry values
assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Type and Code. Code field
values are defined relative to a specific Type value.
[RFC3228] created an IANA the "IGMP Type Numbers" registry for the IGMP Type
field. This document updates that registry in two ways:
* The registration procedure is has been changed to Standards Action.
* The references to [RFC3228], including the reference for the registry is
registry, have been changed to this document.
[RFC3228] created an IANA the '"Code" Fields' registry for Code values for
existing IGMP Type fields. This document updates that registry in
two ways:
* The registration procedure for the existing registries
is has been changed to Standards Action.
* The reference for the registry has been changed to this document.
Note that the policy for assigning Code values for new IGMP Types
MUST be defined in the document defining the new Type value.
2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery
As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields.
Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in
[RFC4443] with a registration policy of IETF Review.
2.2. IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags
The
IANA is requested to create a single has created the "IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags" registry for the
bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] [RFC9777] and the
IGMPv3 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. The format for the
registry is:
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ [RFC9776]. It has been populated as follows:
+===========+============+=============+===========+
| Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
+===========+============+=============+===========+
| 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 |
| 1 | | | |
| 2 | | | |
| 3 [RFC9279] |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| 1-3 | Unassigned |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
Table 1: IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags Registry
The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column
header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] [RFC9777] and
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. [RFC9776].
The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the E-bit defined in
[RFC9279].
The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field requires
Standards Action.
2.3. IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags
The
IANA is requested to create a single has created the "IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags" registry for the
bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Report Message and the IGMPv3
Report Message. The format for the registry is:
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ It has been populated as follows:
+===========+============+=============+===========+
| Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
+===========+============+=============+===========+
| 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 |
| 1 | | | |
| 2 | | | |
| 3 | | | |
| 4 | | | |
| 5 | | | |
| 6 | | | |
| 7 | | | |
| 8 | | | |
| 9 | | | |
| 10 | | | |
| 11 | | | |
| 12 | | | |
| 13 | | | |
| 14 | | | |
| 15 [RFC9279] |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| 1-15 | Unassigned |
+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
+-----------+--------------------------------------+
Table 2: IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags Registry
The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column
header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] [RFC9777] and
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. [RFC9776].
The initial contents of this requested registry should contain includes the E-bit defined in
[RFC9279].
The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field require requires
Standards Action.
3. Security Considerations
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned,
existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, traffic or loss of security if
it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an
attack. This vulnerability argues for high visibility (which the
Standards Action process ensures) for the assignments whenever
possible.
4. Contributors
Bill Fenner was the author of RFC 3228, which provided a portion of
the content contained herein.
5. References
5.1.
4.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]
Haberman, B., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-
3376bis-11, 13 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
3376bis-11>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis]
Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-11, 13 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
3810bis-11>.
[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>.
[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>.
5.2.
[RFC9776] Haberman, B., Ed., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", STD 100, RFC 9776, DOI 10.17487/RFC9776, March
2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9776>.
[RFC9777] Haberman, B., Ed., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", STD 101, RFC 9777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9777, March 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9777>.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC3228] Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, February 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3228>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC9279] Sivakumar, M., Venaas, S., Zhang, Z., and H. Asaeda,
"Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and
Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Message
Extension", RFC 9279, DOI 10.17487/RFC9279, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9279>.
Contributors
Bill Fenner is the author of [RFC3228], which provided a portion of
the content contained herein.
Author's Address
Brian Haberman (editor)
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Email: brian@innovationslab.net