<?xmlversion="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfcSYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?>[ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="bcp" docName="draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07" number="9778" consensus="true" ipr="pre5378trust200902"obsoletes="3228">obsoletes="3228" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3"> <front> <titleabbrev="IGMP IANA">IANAabbrev="IANA Considerations for IGMP">IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9778"/> <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="57" /> <author fullname="Brian Haberman" initials="B." surname="Haberman" role="editor"> <organization abbrev="JHU APL">Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab</organization> <address> <email>brian@innovationslab.net</email> </address> </author> <date year="2025" month="March"/> <area>RTG</area> <workgroup>pim</workgroup> <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> <abstract> <t>This document specifies revised IANAConsiderationsconsiderations for the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) 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.</t> <t>This document obsoletes RFC 3228 and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and IPv6 group management protocols.</t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <section anchor="intro"title="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>Thefollowingsections that follow describe the allocation guidelines associated with the specified fields within the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>target="RFC9776" format="default"/> and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/>target="RFC9777" format="default"/> headers. Some of these registries were created previously, while others are created by this document.</t> <t>This document obsoletes <xreftarget="RFC3228"/>target="RFC3228" format="default"/> and unifies guidelines for IPv4 and IPv6 group management protocols.</t> <sectiontitle="Conventionsnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Conventions Used in ThisDocument"> <t>TheDocument</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shownhere.</t>here. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>The registration procedures used in this document are defined in <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.</t>target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.</t> <sectiontitle="Typenumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Type and CodeFields">Fields</name> <sectiontitle="Internetnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Internet Group ManagementProtocol">Protocol</name> <t> 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.</t> <t><xreftarget="RFC3228"/>target="RFC3228" format="default"/> createdan IANAthe "IGMP Type Numbers" registry for the IGMP Type field. This document updates that registry in two ways:<list style="hanging"> <t>The</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>The registration procedureishas been changed to StandardsAction.</t> <t>TheAction.</li> <li>The references to <xref target="RFC3228"/>, including the reference for theregistry isregistry, have been changed to thisdocument.</t> </list></t>document.</li> </ul> <t><xreftarget="RFC3228"/>target="RFC3228" format="default"/> createdan IANAthe '"Code" Fields' registry for Code values for existing IGMP Type fields.TheThis document updates that registry in two ways:</t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li>The registration procedure has been changed to Standards Action.</li> <li>The reference for theexisting registries isregistry has been changed toStandards Action. Thethis document.</li> </ul> <t> Note that the policy for assigning Code values for new IGMP TypesMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be defined in the document defining the new Type value.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Multicastnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Multicast ListenerDiscovery">Discovery</name> <t>As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields. Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in <xreftarget="RFC4443"/>target="RFC4443" format="default"/> with a registration policy of IETFReview.</t>Review; see <<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters"/>>.</t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="IGMP/MLDnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IGMP/MLD Query MessageFlags"> <t>The IANA is requested to create a singleFlags</name> <t>IANA has created the "IGMP/MLD Query Message Flags" registry for the bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Query Message <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/>target="RFC9777" format="default"/> and the IGMPv3 Query Message <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>. The format for the registry is:</t> <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ |target="RFC9776" format="default"/>. It has been populated as follows: </t> <table align="left"> <name>IGMP/MLD Query Message FlagsBit | Short Name | Description | Reference | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | | 1 | | | | | 2 | | | | | 3 | | | | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ ]]></artwork> </figure>Registry</name> <thead> <tr> <th>Flags Bit</th> <th>Short Name</th> <th>Description</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>E</td> <td>Extension</td> <td><xref target="RFC9279" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1-3</td> <td colspan="3">Unassigned</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header in the packet format diagrams in Sections <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/>target="RFC9776" sectionFormat="bare" section="4.1"/> and <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>.</t> <t>The initial contentstarget="RFC9776" sectionFormat="bare" section="4.2"/> ofthis requested registry should contain the E-bit defined in<xreftarget="RFC9279" />.</t>target="RFC9776" format="default"/> and Sections <xref target="RFC9777" sectionFormat="bare" section="5.1"/> and <xref target="RFC9777" sectionFormat="bare" section="5.2"/> of <xref target="RFC9777" format="default"/>.</t> <t>The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags field requires Standards Action.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="IGMP/MLDnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IGMP/MLD Report MessageFlags"> <t>The IANA is requested to create a singleFlags</name> <t>IANA has created the "IGMP/MLD Report Message Flags" registry for the bits in the Flags field of the MLDv2 Report Message and the IGMPv3 Report Message.The format for the registry is:</t> <figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ |It has been populated as follows:</t> <table align="left"> <name>IGMP/MLD Report Message FlagsBit | Short Name | Description | Reference | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | | 1 | | | | | 2 | | | | | 3 | | | | | 4 | | | | | 5 | | | | | 6 | | | | | 7 | | | | | 8 | | | | | 9 | | | | | 10 | | | | | 11 | | | | | 12 | | | | | 13 | | | | | 14 | | | | | 15 | | | | +-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+ ]]></artwork> </figure>Registry</name> <thead> <tr> <th>Flags Bit</th> <th>Short Name</th> <th>Description</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>E</td> <td>Extension</td> <td><xref target="RFC9279" format="default"/></td> </tr> <tr> <td>1-15</td> <td colspan="3">Unassigned</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <t>The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header in the packet format diagrams in <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis"/>target="RFC9777" format="default"/> and <xreftarget="I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis"/>.</t> <t>The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the E-bit defined in <xref target="RFC9279" />.</t>target="RFC9776" format="default"/>.</t> <t>The assignment of new bit flags within the Flags fieldrequirerequires Standards Action.</t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>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 unrecognizedtraffic,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.</t> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <!-- [rfced] As RFCs 9776 and 9777 are being with this document, please consider whether the references should be to the individual RFCs or the STDs instead. rfced: author would like to point to the STDs --> <!-- [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis] companion document RFC 9776 --> <reference anchor="RFC9776" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9776"> <front> <title>Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3</title> <author initials="B." surname="Haberman" fullname="Brian Haberman" role="editor"> <organization>Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab</organization> </author> <date month="March" year="2025"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="STD" value="100"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9776"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9776"/> </reference> <!-- [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] companion document RFC 9777--> <reference anchor="RFC9777" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9777"> <front> <title>Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6</title> <author initials="B." surname="Haberman" fullname="Brian Haberman" role="editor"> <organization>Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab</organization> </author> <date month="March" year="2025"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="STD" value="101"/> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9777"/> <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9777"/> </reference> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3228.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9279.xml"/> </references> </references> <sectiontitle="Contributors"> <t>Bill Fenner wasnumbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Contributors</name> <t><contact fullname="Bill Fenner"/> is the author ofRFC 3228,<xref target="RFC3228" format="default"/>, which provided a portion of the content contained herein.</t> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis" ?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174" ?> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3228" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4443" ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9279" ?> </references><!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> </back> </rfc>