Internet-Draft IGMP IANA August 2024
Haberman Expires 28 February 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07
Obsoletes:
3228 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Best Current Practice
Expires:
Author:
B. Haberman, Ed.
JHU APL

IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols

Abstract

This document specifies revised IANA Considerations for the Internet Group Management Protocol and the Multicast Listener Discovery 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 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 28 February 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The following sections describe the allocation guidelines associated with the specified fields within the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis] and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] 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 registry for the IGMP Type field. This document updates that registry in two ways:

The registration procedure is changed to Standards Action.
The reference for the registry is changed to this document.

[RFC3228] created an IANA registry for Code values for existing IGMP Type fields. The registration procedure for the existing registries is changed to Standards Action. 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 registry for the bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and the IGMPv3 Query Message [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. The format for the registry is:

   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | Flags Bit | Short Name | Description | Reference |
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | 0         |     E      | Extension   | RFC 9279  |
   | 1         |            |             |           |
   | 2         |            |             |           |
   | 3         |            |             |           |
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+

The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis].

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 registry for the bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report Message. The format for the registry is:

   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | 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        |            |             |           |
   +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+

The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis].

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 require 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, 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. 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, , <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, , <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, , <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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

5.2. Informative References

[RFC3228]
Fenner, B., "IANA Considerations for IPv4 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)", BCP 57, RFC 3228, DOI 10.17487/RFC3228, , <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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9279>.

Author's Address

Brian Haberman (editor)
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab