Internet-Draft | PIM Type Extension and Reserved Bits | March 2023 |
Venaas & Retana | Expires 2 September 2023 | [Page] |
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 creates a registry containing the per-message-type usage. This document also extends the PIM type space by defining three new message types. For each of the new types, four of the previously reserved bits are used to form an extended type range.¶
This document updates RFCs 7761 and 3973 by defining the use of the currently 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 currently reserved bits for each PIM message.¶
This document obsoletes RFC 8736.¶
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 2 September 2023.¶
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.¶
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 specified as "reserved" in 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 creates a registry containing 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.¶
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].¶
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.¶
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 new common header format is as below.¶
The Flag Bits field is defined in Section 4. All other fields remain unchanged.¶
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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
These types and the corresponding flag bits are defined in Section 5.¶
This document defines types 13, 14, and 15, such that each of these types has 16 subtypes, providing a total of 48 subtypes available for future PIM extensions. This is achieved by defining a new Subtype field (see Figure 3) using the four most significant flag bits (bits 4-7). The notation type.subtype is used to reference these new extended types. The remaining four flag bits (bits 0-3, abbreviated as FB below) are to be defined by each extended type.¶
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].¶
This document updates the "PIM Message Types" registry to indicate which flag bits are defined for use by each of the PIM message types. The registration policy remains IETF Review [RFC8126]. Assignments into this registry MUST define any non-default usage (see Section 4) of the flag bits in addition to the type.¶
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: 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 Advertisement | 0-7: Unassigned | [RFC7761] |
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 Mechanism | 0-6: Unassigned | [RFC8364] |
7: No-Forward | [RFC8364] | ||
13.0-15.15 | Unassigned | 0-3: Unassigned | [This document] |
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.¶