Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Message Extension

Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Message Extension Juniper Networks

64 Butler St Milpitas CA 95035 United States of America sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134 United States of America stig@cisco.com

ZTE Corporation

No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai District Nanjing 210000 China zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei Tokyo 184-8795 Japan asaeda@nict.go.jp

Routing pim Multicast This document specifies a generic mechanism to extend IGMPv3 and Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) by using a list of TLVs (Type, Length, and Value).

Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at .

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 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 () 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.

Table of Contents

. Introduction
. Conventions Used in This Document
. Extension Format
- . Multicast Listener Query Extension
- . Version 2 Multicast Listener Report Extension
- . IGMP Membership Query Extension
- . IGMP Version 3 Membership Report Extension
. No-op TLV
. Processing the Extension
. Applicability and Backwards Compatibility
. Security Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. References
- . Normative References
- . Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses

Introduction This document defines a generic method to extend IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages to accommodate information other than what is contained in the current message formats. This is done by allowing a list of TLVs to be used in the Additional Data section of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages. This document defines a registry for such TLVs. Other documents will define their specific types, and their values and semantics. The extension would only be used when at least one TLV is to be added to the message. This extension also applies to the lightweight versions of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 as defined in . When this extension mechanism is used, it replaces the Additional Data section defined in IGMPv3/MLDv2 with TLVs. Additional Data is defined for Query messages in IGMPv3 () and MLDv2 (), and for Report messages in IGMPv3 () and MLDv2 ().

Conventions Used in This Document 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Extension Format For each of the IGMPv3 and MLDv2 headers, a previously reserved bit is used to indicate the presence of this extension. When this extension is used, the Additional Data of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages is formatted as follows. Note that this format contains a variable number of TLVs. It MUST contain at least one TLV.

Extension Format 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type 1 | Extension Length 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value 1 | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type 2 | Extension Length 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value 2 | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type n | Extension Length n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value n | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Extension Type:: 2 octets. This identifies a particular Extension Type as defined in the "IGMP/MLD Extension Types" registry. If this is not the first TLV, it will follow immediately after the end of the previous one. There is no alignment or padding.
Extension Length:: 2 octets. This specifies the length in octets of the following Extension Value field. The length may be zero if no value is needed.
Extension Value:: This field contains the value. The specification defining the Extension Type describes the length and contents of this field.

IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages are defined so they can fit within the network MTU in order to avoid fragmentation. An IGMPv3/MLDv2 Report message contains a number of records. The records are called Group Records for IGMPv3 and Address Records for MLDv2. When this extension mechanism is used, the number of records in each Report message SHOULD be kept small enough so that the entire message, including any extension TLVs, can fit within the network MTU.

Multicast Listener Query Extension The MLDv2 Query message format with extension is shown below. The E-bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, it MUST be 0.

MLD Query Extension 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 130 | Code | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Maximum Response Code | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | * * | | * Multicast Address * | | * * | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Resv|S| QRV | QQIC | Number of Sources (N) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | * * | | * Source Address [1] * | | * * | | +- -+ | | * * | | * Source Address [2] * | | * * | | +- . -+ . . . . . . +- -+ | | * * | | * Source Address [N] * | | * * | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Version 2 Multicast Listener Report Extension The MLDv2 Report message format with extension is shown below. The E-bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, it MUST be 0.

MLD Report Extension 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 143 | Reserved | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved |Nr of Mcast Address Records (M)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [1] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [2] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | . . . | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [M] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IGMP Membership Query Extension The IGMPv3 Query message format with the extension is shown below. The E-bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, it MUST be 0.

IGMP Query Extension 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x11 | Max Resp Code | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Resv|S| QRV | QQIC | Number of Sources (N) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address [1] | +- -+ | Source Address [2] | +- . -+ . . . . . . +- -+ | Source Address [N] | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IGMP Version 3 Membership Report Extension The IGMPv3 Report message format with the extension is shown below. The E-bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, it MUST be 0.

IGMP Report Extension 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x22 | Reserved | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved | Number of Group Records (M) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [1] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [2] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | . . . | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [M] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

No-op TLV The No-op TLV is a No-Operation TLV that MUST be ignored during processing. This TLV may be used to verify that the extension mechanism has been implemented correctly. Note that there is no alignment requirement, so there is no need to use this Extension Type to provide alignment.

No-op TLV Format 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | No-op Type = 0 | No-op Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

No-op Type:: 2 octets. The type of the No-op TLV extension is 0.
Extension Length:: 2 octets. This specifies the length in octets of the following Value field. The length may be zero if no value is needed.
Value:: This field contains the value. As this Extension Type is always ignored, the value can be arbitrary data. The number of octets used MUST match the specified length.

Processing the Extension The procedure specified in this document only applies when the E-bit is set. If the validation of the TLVs fails, the entire Additional Data field MUST be ignored as specified in IGMPv3 and MLDv2 . The following checks must pass for the validation of the TLVs not to fail:

At least one TLV MUST be present.
There MUST NOT be any data in the IP payload after the last TLV. To check this, the parser needs to walk through each of the TLVs until there are less than four octets left in the IP payload. If there are any octets left, validation fails.
The total length of the Extension MUST NOT exceed the remainder of the IP payload length. For this validation, only the content of the Extension Length fields is examined.

Future documents defining a new Extension Type MUST specify any additional processing and validation. These rules, if any, will be examined only after the general validation succeeds. TLVs with unsupported Extension Types MUST be ignored.

Applicability and Backwards Compatibility IGMP and MLD implementations, particularly implementations on hosts, rarely change. The adoption process of this extension mechanism is expected to be slow. As new extension TLVs are defined, it may take a long time for them to be supported. Due to this, defining new extension TLVs should not be taken lightly, and it is crucial to consider backwards compatibility. Implementations that do not support this extension mechanism will ignore it, as specified in and . As mentioned in the previous section, unsupported extension TLVs are ignored. It is possible that a new extension TLV will only apply to queries or only to reports, or that there may be other specific conditions for when it is to be used. A document defining a new Extension Type MUST specify the conditions under which the new Extension Type should be used, including which message types. It MUST also be specified what the behavior should be if a message is not used in the defined manner, e.g., if it is present in a Query message, when it was only expected to be used in reports. When defining new Extension Types, the effect of partial support for the new TLV, by either the hosts or routers, on the same link should be carefully considered. Further, whether there are any dependencies or restrictions on combinations between the new Extension Types and any preexisting Extension Types must be considered. This document defines an extension mechanism only for IGMPv3 and MLDv2. Hence, this mechanism does not apply if hosts or routers send older version messages.

Security Considerations The Security Considerations of and also apply here. This document extends the IGMP and MLD message formats, allowing for a variable number of TLVs. Implementations must take care not to exceed the packet boundary when parsing the TLVs, because an attacker could intentionally specify a TLV with a length exceeding the boundary. An implementation could add a large number of minimal TLVs in a message to increase the cost of processing the message. This would magnify a denial-of-service attack.

IANA Considerations IANA has created a new registry called "IGMP/MLD Extension Types" in the "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Type Numbers" section and lists this document as the reference. The registration procedure is "IETF Review" . The registry is common for IGMP and MLD. Two Extension Types (65534 and 65535) are provided for "Experimental Use" . Any experiments should be confined to closed environments where it is unlikely that they may conflict with other experiments; see . IANA has initially populated the registry as shown in IGMP/MLD Extension Types

Extension Type	Length	Name	Reference
0	variable	No-op	RFC 9279
1-65533		Unassigned
65534-65535	variable	Reserved for Experimental Use

References Normative References Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3 Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 This document updates RFC 2710, and it specifies Version 2 of the ulticast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLDv2). MLD is used by an IPv6 router to discover the presence of multicast listeners on directly attached links, and to discover which multicast addresses are of interest to those neighboring nodes. MLDv2 is designed to be interoperable with MLDv1. MLDv2 adds the ability for a node to report interest in listening to packets with a particular multicast address only from specific source addresses or from all sources except for specific source addresses. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry. This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226. Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. For example, to test a new DHCP option, one needs an option number to identify the new function. This document recommends that when writing IANA Considerations sections, authors should consider assigning a small range of numbers for experimentation purposes that implementers can use when testing protocol extensions or other new features. This document reserves some ranges of numbers for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to support experimentation has been identified. Lightweight Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols This document describes lightweight IGMPv3 and MLDv2 protocols (LW- IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2), which simplify the standard (full) versions of IGMPv3 and MLDv2. The interoperability with the full versions and the previous versions of IGMP and MLD is also taken into account. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Acknowledgements The authors thank , , , , , , , , and for reviewing the document and providing valuable feedback.