< draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-02.txt   draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03.txt >
Network Working Group S. Venaas Network Working Group S. Venaas
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 3973, 5015, 6754, 7761, 8364 A. Retana Obsoletes: 6166 (if approved) A. Retana
(if approved) Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Updates: 3973, 5015, 5059, 6754, 7761, Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track June 25, 2019 8364 (if approved) August 15, 2019
Expires: December 27, 2019 Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 16, 2020
PIM reserved bits and type space extension PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits
draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-02 draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits-03
Abstract Abstract
The currently defined PIM version 2 messages share a common message The PIM version 2 messages share a common message header format. The
header format. The common header definition contains eight reserved common header definition contains eight reserved bits. This document
bits. This document specifies how these bits may be used by specifies how these bits may be used by individual message types, and
individual message types, and creates a registry containing the per creates a registry containing the per message type usage. This
message type usage. This document also extends the PIM type space by document also extends the PIM type space by defining three new
defining three new message types. For each of the new types, four of message types. For each of the new types, four of the previously
the previously reserved bits are used to form an extended type range. reserved bits are used to form an extended type range.
This document Updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the This document Updates RFC7761 and RFC3973 by defining the use of the
currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document
further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC6754 and further updates RFC7761 and RFC3973, along with RFC5015, RFC5059,
RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently Reserved bits for RFC6754 and RFC8364, by specifying the use of the currently Reserved
each PIM message. bits for each PIM message.
This document obsoletes RFC6166.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PIM header common format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PIM header common format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Flag Bit definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Flag Bit definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election) . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. Flag Bits for Type 13 (Type Space Extension) . . . . . . 4 4.4. Flag Bits for Types 13, 14 and 15 (Type Space Extension) 4
4.5. Flag Bits for Type 14 (Type Space Extension) . . . . . . 4 5. PIM Type Space Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.6. Flag Bits for Type 15 (Type Space Extension) . . . . . . 4
5. PIM Type Space Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The currently defined PIM version 2 messages share a common message The PIM version 2 messages share a common message header format
header format defined in the PIM Sparse Mode [RFC7761] and Dense Mode defined in the PIM Sparse Mode [RFC7761] specification. The common
[RFC3973] specifications. The common header definition contains header definition contains eight Reserved bits. The message types
eight reserved bits. The message types defined in these documents defined in these documents all use this common header. There is no
all use this common header. However, several messages already make document formally specifying that these bits are to be used per
use of one or more bits, including the Bootstrap [RFC5059], DF- message type.
Election [RFC5015], and PIM Flooding Mechanism (PFM) [RFC8364]
messages. 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 This document refers to the bits specified as Reserved in the common
PIM header [RFC7761] [RFC3973] as PIM message type flag bits, or PIM header [RFC7761] as PIM message type Flag Bits, or simply Flag
simply flag bits, and it specifies that they are to be separately Bits, and it specifies that they are to be separately used on a per
used on a per message type basis. It creates a registry containing message type basis. It creates a registry containing the per message
the per message type usage. For a particular message type, the usage type usage. Documents defining a new message type MUST define the
of the flag bits can be defined in the document defining the message usage of the corresponding Flag Bits.
type, or a new document that updates that document.
The PIM message types as defined in the PIM Sparse Mode [RFC7761] and This document Updates [RFC7761] and [RFC3973] by defining the use of
Dense Mode [RFC3973] specifications are in the range from 0 to 15. the currently Reserved field in the PIM common header. This document
That type space is almost exhausted. Message type 15 was reserved by further updates [RFC7761] and [RFC3973], along with [RFC5015],
[RFC6166] for type space extension. In Section 5, this document [RFC5059], [RFC6754] and [RFC8364], by specifying the use of the
specifies the use of the flag bits for message types 13, 14 and 15 in currently Reserved bits for each PIM message.
order to extend the PIM type space. The registration procedure for
the extended type space is the same as for the existing type space, The currently defined PIM message types are in the range from 0 to
and the existing PIM message type registry is updated to include the 15. That type space is almost exhausted. Message type 15 was
extended type space. 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. This document
Obsoletes [RFC6166].
2. Conventions used in this document 2. 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. PIM header common format 3. PIM header common format
The common PIM header is defined in section 4.9 of [RFC7761] and The common PIM header is defined in section 4.9 of [RFC7761]. This
section 4.7.1 of [RFC3973]. This document updates the definition of document updates the definition of the Reserved field and refers to
the Reserved field and refers to that field as PIM message type flag that field as PIM message type Flag Bits, or simply Flag Bits. The
bits, or simply flag bits. The new common header format is as below. new common header format is as below.
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 | Flags Bits | Checksum | |PIM Ver| Type | Flags Bits | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FIgure 1: New Common Header
The Flags Bits field is defined in Section 4. All other fields The Flags Bits field is defined in Section 4. All other fields
remain unchanged. remain unchanged.
4. Flag Bit definitions 4. Flag Bit definitions
Unless otherwise specified, all the flag bits for each PIM type are Unless otherwise specified, all the Flag Bits for each PIM type are
Reserved [RFC8126]. They MUST be set to zero on transmission, and Reserved [RFC8126]. They MUST be set to zero on transmission, and
they MUST be ignored upon receipt. The specification of a new PIM they MUST be ignored upon receipt. The specification of a new PIM
type, MUST indicate whether the bits should be treated differently. type, MUST indicate whether the bits should be treated differently.
Currently for the message types 0 (Hello), 1 (Register), 2 (Register When defining Flag Bits it is helpful to have a well defined way of
Stop), 3 (Join/Prune), 5 (Assert), 6 (Graft), 7 (Graft-Ack), 8 referring to a particular bit. The most significant of the Flag
(Candidate RP Advertisement), 9 (State Refresh) and 11 (ECMP Bits, the bit immediately following the type field is referred to as
Redirect), all flag bits are Reserved.
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 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. field is referred to as bit 0. This is shown in the diagram below.
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 |7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0| Checksum | |PIM Ver| Type |7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0| Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flag Bits
4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap) 4.1. Flag Bits for Type 4 (Bootstrap)
PIM message type 4 (Bootstrap) [RFC5059] defines flag bit 7 as No- PIM message type 4 (Bootstrap) [RFC5059] defines Flag Bit 7 as No-
Forward. The usage of the bit is defined in that document. The Forward. The usage of the bit is defined in that document. The
remaining flag bits are Reserved. remaining Flag Bits are Reserved.
4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election) 4.2. Flag Bits for Type 10 (DF Election)
PIM message type 10 (DF Election) [RFC5015] specifies that the four PIM message type 10 (DF Election) [RFC5015] specifies that the four
most significant flag bits (bits 4-7) are to be used as a sub-type. most significant Flag Bits (bits 4-7) are to be used as a sub-type.
The remaining flag bits are currently Reserved. The remaining Flag Bits are Reserved.
4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM) 4.3. Flag Bits for Type 12 (PFM)
PIM message type 12 (PFM) [RFC8364] defines flag bit 7 as No-Forward. PIM message type 12 (PFM) [RFC8364] defines Flag Bit 7 as No-Forward.
The usage of the bit is defined in that document. The remaining flag The usage of the bit is defined in that document. The remaining Flag
bits are Reserved. Bits are Reserved.
4.4. Flag Bits for Type 13 (Type Space Extension)
This type and the flag bit usage is defined in Section 5.
4.5. Flag Bits for Type 14 (Type Space Extension)
This type and the flag bit usage is defined in Section 5.
4.6. Flag Bits for Type 15 (Type Space Extension) 4.4. Flag Bits for Types 13, 14 and 15 (Type Space Extension)
This type and the flag bit usage is defined in Section 5. These types and the corresponding Flag Bits are defined in Section 5.
5. PIM Type Space Extension 5. PIM Type Space Extension
The type space defined by the existing PIM specifications is almost This document defines types 13, 14 and 15, such that each of these
exhausted. This document defines types 13, 14 and 15, such that each types has 16 subtypes, providing a total of 48 subtypes available for
of these types has 16 subtypes, providing a total of 48 subtypes future pim extensions. This is achieved by defining a new SubType
available for future pim extensions. This is achieved by for each of field (see Figure 3) using the four most significant Flag Bits (bits
the types 13, 14 and 15, using the four most significant flag bits 4-7). The notation Type.SubType is used to reference these new
(bits 4-7) as a new field to store the extended type. These types extended types. The remaining four Flag Bits (bits 0-3) are Reserved
are referred to as types 13.0 to 13.15, 14.0 to 14.15 and 15.0 to to be used by each extended type. Documents defining a new extended
15.15, where the number after the dot denotes the value stored in the message type MUST define the usage of the corresponding Flag Bits.
new field. The remaining four flag bits (bits 0-3) are Reserved to
be used by each extended type. The specification of a new PIM
extended type MUST indicate whether the bits should be treated
differently. The common header for the new types is shown in the
diagram below. The "Type" field is set to 13, 14 or 15, and the
extended type field "SubType" denotes the value after the dot.
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| Rsvd | Checksum | |PIM Ver| Type |SubType| Rsvd | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Sub-Types
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document clarifies the use of the flag bits in the common PIM 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 header and it extends the PIM type space. As such, there is no
impact on security or changes to the considerations in [RFC7761] and impact on security or changes to the considerations in [RFC7761] and
[RFC3973]. [RFC3973].
7. IANA considerations 7. IANA considerations
This document updates the PIM Message Types registry and also creates This document updates the PIM Message Types registry to indicate
a PIM Message Type Flag Bits registry that shows which flag bits are which Flag Bits are defined for use by each of the PIM message types.
defined for use by each of the PIM message types. The Registry should now reference this document instead of [RFC6166].
The Registration Policy remains IETF Review [RFC8126].
The following changes should be made to the existing PIM Message The updated PIM Message Types registry is shown below.
Types registry. For types 4 (Bootstrap) and 8 (Candidate RP
Advertisement) a reference to RFC5059 should be added. For the
currently unassigned types 13 and 14, and the reserved type 15, the
name should be changed to "Type Space Extension", and reference this
document. In addition, right underneath each of the rows for types
13, 14 and 15, there should be a new row where it says "13.0-13.15
Unassigned", "14.0-14.15 Unassigned" and "15.0-15.15 Unassigned",
respectively.
A new registry called "PIM Message Type Flag Bits" should be created Type Flag Bits Name Reference
in the pim-paremeters section with registration procedure "IETF ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Review" as defined in [RFC8126] with this document as a reference. 0 N/A Hello [RFC3973][RFC7761]
The initial content of the registry should be as below. 0 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
1 N/A Register [RFC7761]
1 0-7 Reserved [RFC7761]
2 N/A Register Stop [RFC7761]
2 0-7 Reserved [RFC7761]
3 N/A Join/Prune [RFC3973][RFC7761]
3 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
4 N/A Bootstrap [RFC7761]
4 0-6 Reserved [RFC5059][RFC7761]
4 7 No-Forward [RFC5059]
5 N/A Assert [RFC3973][RFC7761]
5 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
6 N/A Graft [RFC3973]
6 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973]
7 N/A Graft-Ack [RFC3973]
7 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973]
8 N/A Candidate RP Advertisement [RFC7761]
8 0-7 Reserved [RFC7761]
9 N/A State Refresh [RFC3973]
9 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973]
10 N/A DF Election [RFC5015]
10 0-3 Reserved [RFC5015]
10 4-7 Subtype [RFC5015]
11 N/A ECMP Redirect [RFC6754]
11 0-7 Reserved [RFC6754]
12 N/A PIM Flooding Mechanism [RFC8364]
12 0-6 Reserved [RFC8364]
12 7 No-Forward [RFC8364]
13.0-13.15 N/A Unassigned [this document]
14.0-14.15 N/A Unassigned [this document]
15.0-15.15 N/A Unassigned [this document]
Type bit(s) Name Reference Table 1: Updated PIM Message Types Registry
--------------------------------------------------------------
0 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
1 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
2 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
3 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
4 0-6 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
4 7 No-Forward [RFC5059]
5 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
6 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
7 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
8 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
9 0-7 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
10 0-3 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
10 4-7 Sub-type [RFC5015]
11 0-7 Reserved [RFC6754]
12 0-6 Reserved [RFC3973][RFC7761]
12 7 No-Forward [RFC8364]
13 0-3 N/A (used by 13.0-13.15) [this document]
13 4-7 Extended type [this document]
13.0-13.15 0-3 Reserved [this document]
14 0-3 N/A (used by 14.0-14.15) [this document]
14 4-7 Extended type [this document]
14.0-14.15 0-3 Reserved [this document]
15 0-3 N/A (used by 15.0-15.15) [this document]
15 4-7 Extended type [this document]
15.0-15.15 0-3 Reserved [this document]
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. 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>.
[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 [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973, Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973,
January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3973>. January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3973>.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.
[RFC5059] Bhaskar, N., Gall, A., Lingard, J., and S. Venaas, [RFC5059] Bhaskar, N., Gall, A., Lingard, J., and S. Venaas,
"Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol Independent "Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for Protocol Independent
Multicast (PIM)", RFC 5059, DOI 10.17487/RFC5059, January Multicast (PIM)", RFC 5059, DOI 10.17487/RFC5059, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5059>. 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, [RFC6754] Cai, Y., Wei, L., Ou, H., Arya, V., and S. Jethwani,
"Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath "Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath
(ECMP) Redirect", RFC 6754, DOI 10.17487/RFC6754, October (ECMP) Redirect", RFC 6754, DOI 10.17487/RFC6754, October
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6754>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6754>.
[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>.
[RFC8364] Wijnands, IJ., Venaas, S., Brig, M., and A. Jonasson, "PIM [RFC8364] Wijnands, IJ., Venaas, S., Brig, M., and A. Jonasson, "PIM
Flooding Mechanism (PFM) and Source Discovery (SD)", Flooding Mechanism (PFM) and Source Discovery (SD)",
RFC 8364, DOI 10.17487/RFC8364, March 2018, RFC 8364, DOI 10.17487/RFC8364, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8364>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8364>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC6166] Venaas, S., "A Registry for PIM Message Types", RFC 6166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6166, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6166>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stig Venaas Stig Venaas
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose CA 95134 San Jose CA 95134
USA USA
Email: stig@cisco.com Email: stig@cisco.com
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 21
USA USA
Email: stig@cisco.com Email: stig@cisco.com
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expressway 2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara CA 95050 Santa Clara CA 95050
USA USA
Email: aretana@futurewei.com Email: alvaro.retana@futurewei.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
155 lines changed or deleted 140 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/