rfc9465.original   rfc9465.txt 
Network Working Group V. Kamath Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) V. Kamath
Internet-Draft VMware Request for Comments: 9465 VMware
Intended status: Standards Track R. Chokkanathapuram Sundaram Category: Standards Track R. Chokkanathapuram Sundaram
Expires: 14 September 2023 Cisco Systems, Inc. ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Banthia R. Banthia
Apstra Apstra
A. Gopal A. Gopal
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
13 March 2023 September 2023
PIM Null-Register packing PIM Null-Register Packing
draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16
Abstract Abstract
In PIM-SM networks, PIM Null-Register messages are sent by the In PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) networks, PIM Null-Register messages are
Designated Router (DR) to the Rendezvous Point (RP) to signal the sent by the Designated Router (DR) to the Rendezvous Point (RP) to
presence of Multicast sources in the network. There are periodic PIM signal the presence of multicast sources in the network. There are
Null-Registers sent from the DR to the RP to keep the state alive at periodic PIM Null-Registers sent from the DR to the RP to keep the
the RP as long as the source is active. The PIM Null-Register state alive at the RP as long as the source is active. The PIM Null-
message carries information about a single Multicast source and Register message carries information about a single multicast source
group. and group.
This document defines a standard to send multiple Multicast source This document defines a standard to send information about multiple
and group information in a single PIM message. This document refers multicast sources and groups in a single PIM message. This document
to the new messages as the PIM Packed Null-Register message and PIM refers to the new messages as the "PIM Packed Null-Register message"
Packed Register-Stop message. and "PIM Packed Register-Stop message".
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 September 2023. 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/rfc9465.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology
2. Packed Null-Register Packing Capability . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Packing Capability
3. PIM Packed Null-Register message format . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PIM Packed Null-Register Message Format
4. PIM Packed Register-Stop message format . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. PIM Packed Register-Stop Message Format
5. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Protocol Operation
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Operational Considerations
6.1. PIM Anycast RP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. PIM Anycast RP Considerations
6.2. Interoperability between different versions . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Interoperability between Different Versions
6.3. Disabling PIM Packed Message Support at RP and/or DR . . 6 6.3. Disabling PIM Packed Message Support at RP and/or DR
7. Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Fragmentation Considerations
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Normative References
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The DR periodically sends PIM Null-Registers to keep the state of The DR periodically sends PIM Null-Registers to keep the state of
existing multicast sources active on the RP. As the number of existing multicast sources active on the RP. As the number of
multicast sources increases, the number of PIM Null-Register messages multicast sources increases, the number of PIM Null-Register messages
that are sent also increases. This results in more PIM packet that are sent also increases. This results in more PIM packet
processing at the RP and the DR. processing at the RP and the DR.
This document specifies a method to efficiently pack the content of This document specifies a method to efficiently pack the content of
multiple PIM Null-Register and Register-Stop messages [RFC7761] into multiple PIM Null-Register and Register-Stop messages [RFC7761] into
a single message. a single message.
The document also discusses interoperability between PIM routers that The document also discusses interoperability between PIM routers that
support PIM Packed Null-Registers and PIM Packed Register-Stops and support PIM Packed Null-Registers and PIM Packed Register-Stops and
PIM routers that do not. PIM routers that do not.
1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
RP: Rendezvous Point RP: Rendezvous Point
DR: Designated Router DR: Designated Router
2. Packed Null-Register Packing Capability MSDP: Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
PIM-SM: PIM Sparse Mode
2. Packing Capability
The RP indicates its ability to receive PIM Packed Null-Register The RP indicates its ability to receive PIM Packed Null-Register
messages (Section 3) and send PIM Packed Register-Stop messages messages (Section 3) and send PIM Packed Register-Stop messages
(Section 4) with a Packing Capability bit (P-bit) in the PIM (Section 4) with a Packing Capability bit (P-bit) in the PIM
Register-Stop message. The P-bit is allocated in Section 9. Register-Stop message. The P-bit is allocated in Section 9.
0 1 2 3 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 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 |P|6 5 4 3 2 1 0| Checksum | |PIM Ver| Type |7 6 5 4 3 2 1|P| Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address (Encoded-Group format) | | Group Address (Encoded-Group format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) | | Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PIM Register-Stop message with Packing Capability option
The fields in the PIM Register-Stop message are defined in Figure 1: PIM Register-Stop Message with Packing Capability Option
Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
[I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis].
Packing Capability bit (P-bit / Flag Bit TBD1): When set, it The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Register-Stop
indicates the ability of the RP to receive PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header
messages, and send PIM Packed Register-Stop messages. is defined in [RFC9436].
Packing Capability bit (P-bit; flag bit 0): When set, it indicates
the ability of the RP to receive PIM Packed Null-Register messages
and send PIM Packed Register-Stop messages.
3. PIM Packed Null-Register Message Format
3. PIM Packed Null-Register message format
0 1 2 3 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 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 | |PIM Ver| Type |Subtype| FB | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) |
| Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) |
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. Group Address[N] . . Group Address[N] .
| Source Address[N] | | Source Address[N] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PIM Packed Null-Register message format
The fields in the PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in Figure 2: PIM Packed Null-Register Message Format
Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
[I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
Type, Subtype: The PIM Packed Null-Register Type value TBD2. The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed Null-
[I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis] Register message are defined in Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The
common header is defined in [RFC9436].
N: The total number of records; A record consists of a Group Address Type, Subtype: PIM Packed Null-Register (13.0).
and Source Address pair.
N: The total number of records; a record consists of a Group Address
and Source Address pair.
After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Null-Register parsed one by one until the end of the PIM Packed Null-Register
message. This length is inferred from the IP layer. message. This length is inferred from the IP layer.
Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message is the Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message has the
equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual Null-Register
Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed message for each record represented in the PIM Packed Null-Register
Null-Register message. message.
4. PIM Packed Register-Stop Message Format
4. PIM Packed Register-Stop message format
0 1 2 3 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 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 | |PIM Ver| Type |Subtype| FB | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) |
| Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) |
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. Group Address[N] . . Group Address[N] .
| Source Address[N] | | Source Address[N] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PIM Packed Register-Stop message format
The fields in the PIM Packed Register-Stop message are defined in Figure 3: PIM Packed Register-Stop Message Format
Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
[I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
Type, Subtype: The PIM Packed Register-Stop Type TBD3 The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed
Register-Stop message are defined in Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The
common header is defined in [RFC9436].
N: The total number of records; A record consists of a Group Address Type, Subtype: PIM Packed Register-Stop (13.1).
and Source Address pair.
N: The total number of records; a record consists of a Group Address
and Source Address pair.
After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Register-Stop parsed one by one until the end of the PIM Packed Register-Stop
message. This length is inferred from the IP layer. message. This length is inferred from the IP layer.
Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message is the Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message has the
equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual Null-Register
Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed message for each record represented in the PIM Packed Register-Stop.
Register-Stop.
5. Protocol operation 5. Protocol Operation
As specified in [RFC7761], the DR sends PIM Register messages towards As specified in [RFC7761], the DR sends PIM Register messages towards
the RP when a new source is detected. the RP when a new source is detected.
When this feature is enabled/configured, an RP supporting this When this feature is enabled/configured, an RP supporting this
specification MUST set the P-bit (Flag bit TBD1) in all Register-Stop specification MUST set the P-bit (flag bit 0) in all Register-Stop
messages. messages.
When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, the DR When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, the DR
SHOULD send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) to the RP SHOULD send PIM Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) to the RP
instead of multiple Register messages with the N-bit set [RFC7761]. instead of multiple Register messages with the N-bit set [RFC7761].
The DR MAY use a mixture of PIM Packed Null-Register messages and The DR MAY use a mixture of PIM Packed Null-Register messages and
Register messages. The decision is up to the implementation and out Register messages. The decision is up to the implementation and out
of the scope of this document. However, it is RECOMMENDED to stick of the scope of this document. However, it is RECOMMENDED to stick
to the PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed Register-Stop formats to the PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed Register-Stop formats
as long as the RP and DR have the feature enabled. as long as the RP and DR have the feature enabled.
The RP, after receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message, SHOULD After receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message, the RP SHOULD
start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) to the start sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) to the
corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop messages. The corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop messages. The
RP MAY use a mixture of PIM Packed Register-Stop messages and RP MAY use a mixture of PIM Packed Register-Stop messages and
individual Register-Stop messages. The decision is up to the individual Register-Stop messages. The decision is up to the
implementation and out of the scope of this document. However, it is implementation and out of the scope of this document. However, it is
RECOMMENDED to stick to the PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed RECOMMENDED to stick to the PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed
Register-Stop formats as long as the RP and DR have the feature Register-Stop formats as long as the RP and DR have the feature
enabled. enabled.
6. Operational Considerations 6. Operational Considerations
6.1. PIM Anycast RP Considerations 6.1. PIM Anycast RP Considerations
The PIM Packed Null-Register packet format should be enabled only if The PIM Packed Null-Register packet format should be enabled only if
it is supported by all the routers in the Anycast-RP set [RFC4610]. it is supported by all the routers in the Anycast-RP set [RFC4610].
This consideration applies to PIM Anycast RP with MSDP [RFC3446] as This consideration applies to PIM Anycast RP with Multicast Source
well. Discovery Protocol (MSDP) [RFC3446] as well.
6.2. Interoperability between different versions 6.2. Interoperability between Different Versions
A router (DR) can decide to use the PIM Packed Null-Register message A router (DR) can decide to use the PIM Packed Null-Register message
format based on the Packing Capability received from the RP as part format based on the Packing Capability received from the RP as part
of the PIM Register-Stop. This ensures compatibility with routers of the PIM Register-Stop. This ensures compatibility with routers
that do not support processing of the new packet format. The Packing that do not support processing of the new packet format. The Packing
Capability information MUST be indicated by the RP via the PIM Capability information MUST be indicated by the RP via the PIM
Register-Stop message sent to the DR. Thus, a DR will switch to the Register-Stop message sent to the DR. Thus, a DR will switch to the
new packet format only when it learns that the RP is capable of new packet format only when it learns that the RP is capable of
handling the PIM Packed Null-Register messages. handling the PIM Packed Null-Register messages.
Conversely, a DR that does not support the packed format can continue Conversely, a DR that does not support the packed format can continue
generating the PIM Null-Register as defined in [RFC7761] generating the PIM Null-Register as defined in Section 4.4 of
(Section 4.4). [RFC7761].
6.3. Disabling PIM Packed Message Support at RP and/or DR 6.3. Disabling PIM Packed Message Support at RP and/or DR
Consider a PIM RP router that supports PIM Packed Null-Registers and Consider a PIM RP router that supports PIM Packed Null-Registers and
PIM Packed Register-Stops. In scenarios where this router now no PIM Packed Register-Stops. In scenarios where this router no longer
longer supports this feature, for example, in case of a software supports this feature, for example, in case of a software downgrade,
downgrade, it will not send a PIM Register-Stop message to the DR in it will not send a PIM Register-Stop message to the DR in response to
response to a PIM Packed Null-Register message. a PIM Packed Null-Register message.
When the DR switches to Data Registers from Null-Registers, it MUST When the DR switches to Data Registers from Null-Registers, it MUST
start a Packed_Register_Probe_Time timer. If no PIM Packed Register- start a Packed_Register_Probe_Time timer. If no PIM Packed Register-
Stop or Register-Stop with the P-bit set is received within Stop or Register-Stop with the P-bit set is received within
Packed_Register_Probe_Time seconds, the DR can decide that the RP no Packed_Register_Probe_Time seconds, the DR can decide that the RP no
longer supports PIM Packed Null-Registers. The longer supports PIM Packed Null-Registers. The
Packed_Register_Probe_Time timer is configurable; its default value Packed_Register_Probe_Time timer is configurable; its default value
is 60 seconds. is 60 seconds.
When Packed_Register_Probe_Time expires, The DR MAY also send an When Packed_Register_Probe_Time expires, the DR MAY also send an
unpacked PIM Null-Register and check the PIM Register-Stop to see if unpacked PIM Null-Register and check the PIM Register-Stop to see if
the P-bit is set or not. If it is not set then the DR will continue the P-bit is set or not. If it is not set, then the DR will continue
sending unpacked PIM Null-Register messages. sending unpacked PIM Null-Register messages.
In case the network manager disables the Packing Capability at the In case the network manager disables the Packing Capability at the RP
RP, or in other words, disables the feature from the RP, the router (or in other words, disables the feature from the RP), the router
MUST NOT advertise the Packing Capability. However, an MUST NOT advertise the Packing Capability. However, an
implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if they implementation MAY choose to still parse any packed registers if they
are received. This may be particularly useful in the transitional are received. This may be particularly useful in the transitional
period after the network manager disables it. period after the network manager disables it.
7. Fragmentation Considerations 7. Fragmentation Considerations
As explained in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC7761], the DR may perform Path As explained in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC7761], the DR may perform Path
MTU Discovery to the RP before sending PIM Packed Null-Register MTU Discovery to the RP before sending PIM Packed Null-Register
messages. Similarly, the RP may perform Path MTU Discovery to the DR messages. Similarly, the RP may perform Path MTU Discovery to the DR
before sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages. In both cases, the before sending PIM Packed Register-Stop messages. In both cases, the
number of records in a message should be limited such that it can fit number of records in a message should be limited such that it can fit
within the Path MTU. within the Path MTU.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations from [RFC7761] apply to this document. The Security Considerations in [RFC7761] apply to this document. In
In particular, the effect of forging a PIM Packed Null-Register or particular, the effect of forging a PIM Packed Null-Register or
Register-Stop message would be amplified to all the records included Register-Stop message would be amplified to all the records included
instead of just one. instead of just one.
By forging a PIM Register-Stop message and setting the P-bit, an By forging a PIM Register-Stop message and setting the P-bit, an
attacker can trigger the use of PIM Packed Null-Register messages by attacker can trigger the use of PIM Packed Null-Register messages by
a DR thus creating unnecessary churn in the network. a DR, thus creating unnecessary churn in the network.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
When this document is published, IANA is asked to assign a Packing IANA has assigned a Packing Capability bit (0) in the PIM Register-
Capability bit (TBD1) in the PIM Register-Stop Common Header from the Stop common header in the "PIM Message Types" registry.
PIM Message Types registry.
When this document is published, IANA is asked to assign a PIM
message type (TBD2) for the PIM Packed Null-Register from the PIM
Message Types registry. The Flag Bits (0-3) for PIM message type
(TBD2) are requested to be "Unassigned".
When this document is published, IANA is asked to assign a PIM
message type (TBD3) for the PIM Packed Register-Stop from the PIM
Message Types registry. The Flag Bits (0-3) for PIM message type
(TBD3) are requested to be "Unassigned".
10. Acknowledgments IANA has assigned a PIM message type (13.0) for PIM Packed Null-
Register in the "PIM Message Types" registry. Flag bits 0-3 for this
message type are "Unassigned".
The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas, Alvaro Retana, Anish IANA has assigned a PIM message type (13.1) for PIM Packed Register-
Peter, Zheng Zhang and Umesh Dudani for their helpful comments on the Stop in the "PIM Message Types" registry. The flag bits 0-3 for this
document. message type are "Unassigned".
11. Normative References 10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC3446] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
(MSDP)", RFC 3446, DOI 10.17487/RFC3446, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3446>.
[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4610, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4610>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4610, August 2006, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4610>.
[I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis] [RFC9436] Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space
Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits", RFC 9436,
Extension and Reserved Bits", Work in Progress, Internet- DOI 10.17487/RFC9436, August 2023,
Draft, draft-venaas-pim-rfc8736bis-00, 1 March 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9436>.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-venaas-pim-
rfc8736bis-00>.
[RFC3446] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast Acknowledgments
Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas, Alvaro Retana, Anish
(MSDP)", RFC 3446, DOI 10.17487/RFC3446, January 2003, Peter, Zheng Zhang, and Umesh Dudani for their helpful comments on
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3446>. the document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vikas Ramesh Kamath Vikas Ramesh Kamath
VMware VMware
3401 Hillview Ave 3401 Hillview Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Palo Alto, CA 94304
United States of America United States of America
Email: vkamath@vmware.com Email: vkamath@vmware.com
Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America United States of America
Email: ramaksun@cisco.com Email: ramaksun@cisco.com
Raunak Banthia Raunak Banthia
Apstra Apstra
333 Middlefield Rd STE 200 Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025 333 Middlefield Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
United States of America United States of America
Email: rbanthia@apstra.com Email: rbanthia@apstra.com
Ananya Gopal Ananya Gopal
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America United States of America
Email: ananygop@cisco.com Email: ananygop@cisco.com
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
161 lines changed or deleted 161 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.