1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Venaas
Request for Comments: 9436 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: 8736 A. Retana
Updates: 3973, 5015, 5059, 6754, 7761, Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
8364 August 2023
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
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 RFCs 7761 and 3973 by defining the use of the
Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document further
updates RFCs 7761 and 3973, along with RFCs 5015, 5059, 6754, and
8364, by specifying the use of the bits for each PIM message.
This document obsoletes RFC 8736.
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 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9436.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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) 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. Conventions Used in This Document
3. PIM Header Common Format
4. Flag Bit Definitions
4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap)
4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election)
4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PIM Flooding Mechanism)
4.4. Flag Bits for Types 13, 14, and 15 (Type Space Extension)
5. PIM Type Space Extension
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
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 updates the definition of the Reserved field and refers
to it as the "Flag Bits field". It specifies that the flag bits 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 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 bits for each
PIM message.
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 field 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
it as the "Flag Bits field". 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.
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 (PIM Flooding Mechanism)
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 unassigned.
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.
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 except where the
bits have already been specified, 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 [RFC8736], IANA has changed the
references to [RFC8736] in the registry to point to this document
instead.
The updated "PIM Message Types" registry is shown below.
+============+===============+=================+===========+
| Type | Name | Flag Bits | Reference |
+============+===============+=================+===========+
| 0 | Hello | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
| | | | [RFC7761] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 1 | Register | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC7761] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 2 | Register Stop | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC7761] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 3 | Join/Prune | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
| | | | [RFC7761] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 4 | Bootstrap | 0-6: Unassigned | [RFC5059] |
| | | | [RFC7761] |
| | +-----------------+-----------+
| | | 7: No-Forward | [RFC5059] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 5 | Assert | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
| | | | [RFC7761] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 6 | Graft | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 7 | Graft-Ack | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 8 | Candidate RP | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC7761] |
| | Advertisement | | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 9 | State Refresh | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC3973] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 10 | DF Election | 0-3: Unassigned | [RFC5015] |
| | +-----------------+-----------+
| | | 4-7: Subtype | [RFC5015] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 11 | ECMP Redirect | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC6754] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 12 | PIM Flooding | 0-6: Unassigned | [RFC8364] |
| | Mechanism +-----------------+-----------+
| | | 7: No-Forward | [RFC8364] |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 13.0-15.14 | Unassigned | 0-3: Unassigned | |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
| 15.15 | Reserved | 0-3: Reserved | RFC 9436 |
+------------+---------------+-----------------+-----------+
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.
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>.
[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
|
