| Internet-Draft | IGMP IANA | August 2024 |
| Haberman | Expires 28 February 2025 | [Page] |
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.¶
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.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
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 registration procedures used in this document are defined in [RFC8126].¶
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:¶
[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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
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.¶
Bill Fenner was the author of RFC 3228, which provided a portion of the content contained herein.¶