Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      S. Gulrajani
Request for Comments: 6395                                     S. Venaas
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             October 2011


           An Interface Identifier (ID) Hello Option for PIM

Abstract

   This document defines a new PIM Hello option to advertise an
   Interface Identifier that can be used by PIM protocols to uniquely
   identify an interface of a neighboring router.

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 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6395.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
     1.1.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Interface Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
     2.1.  Local Interface Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Router Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a new option for use in PIM Hello messages
   [RFC4601] to carry an Interface Identifier.  A router generates
   identifiers for each of its PIM-enabled interfaces such that each
   interface has a different identifier.  The identifiers can optionally
   be generated such that they are unique within, e.g., an
   administrative domain.

   An example where this Interface Identifier can be used is with PIM
   over Reliable Transport (PORT) [PIM-PORT], where a single Transport
   connection is used between two routers that have multiple interfaces
   connecting them.  If these interfaces have unnumbered or IPv6 link-
   local addresses, the Interface Identifier included in the PORT Join/
   Prune message will identify with which interface the message is
   associated.  For PORT, the Router Identifier is not needed, and it
   can be set to zero.

   All multi-byte integers in this specification are transmitted in
   network byte order (i.e., most significant byte first).

1.1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Interface Identifier Option

   The Interface Identifier option is used to identify the interface of
   a neighboring router through which a PIM Hello [RFC4601] was sent.
   This allows PIM protocols to refer to, or identify, a particular
   interface on a neighboring router.

   The Interface Identifier option need only be included in PIM Hello
   messages if the router supports protocols that require it.  An
   implementation MAY choose to always include it.  The usage of the
   Interface Identifier and the uniqueness requirements are left to the
   specifications of the PIM protocols that implement it.  It is assumed
   that different protocols have different minimum requirements for
   stability and uniqueness of the Interface Identifier but that they
   have no maximum requirement.  When specified, these protocols should
   indicate what their minimum requirements are.

   The Interface Identifier consists of 64 bits.  The lower 32 bits form
   a Local Interface Identifier, and the high 32 bits form a Router
   Identifier.

2.1.  Local Interface Identifier

   The 32-bit Local Interface Identifier is selected such that it is
   unique among the router's PIM-enabled interfaces.  That is, there
   MUST NOT be two PIM interfaces with the same Local Interface
   Identifier.  While an interface is up, the Identifier MUST always be
   the same once it has been allocated.  If an interface goes down and
   comes up, the router SHOULD use the same Identifier.  If a node goes
   down and comes up again, the Identifier for each interface MAY
   change.  Many systems make use of an ifIndex [RFC2863] as a Local
   Interface Identifier.

   The Local Interface Identifier MUST be non-zero.  The reason for this
   is that some protocols may have messages that optionally reference an
   Interface Identifier, and they may use the value of 0 to show that no
   Interface Identifier is being referenced.  Note that the value of 0
   is not a valid ifIndex as defined in [RFC2863].

2.2.  Router Identifier

   The 32-bit Router Identifier may be used to uniquely identify the
   router.  The requirements for the scope in which the Router
   Identifier needs to be unique depend on the protocols that utilize
   it.  It may need to be unique within some administrative domain, or
   it may possibly be globally unique.

   A router implementation selects a Router Identifier according to a
   configured policy that defines the uniqueness scope.  Thus, an
   implementation MAY be configured to choose an IPv4 unicast address
   assigned to the router as the Router Identifier, but the
   implementation MUST allow the identifier to be configured manually.

   Protocols such as BGP [RFC4271] and OSPFv2 [RFC2328] are other
   protocols that make use of 32-bit identifiers for routers.  Provided
   that the stability and uniqueness requirements of the protocols that
   make use of the Router Identifier are met, an implementation MAY use
   the same identifier used by other protocols.

   The value 0 has a special meaning for the Router Identifier.  It
   means that no Router Identifier is used.  If a router only supports
   protocols that require the Interface Identifier to be unique for one
   router (only making use of the Local Interface Identifier), then the
   implementation MAY set the Router Identifier to zero.

3.  Message Format

   Option Type: Interface Identifier

     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 = 31           |         Length = 8            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Router Identifier                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Local Interface Identifier                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Allocated Hello Type values can be found in [HELLO-OPT].

   Length:   In bytes for the value part of the Type/Length/Value
      encoding.  The Interface Identifier will be 8 bytes long.

   Router Identifier:   The Router Identifier is a 4-byte identifier
      uniquely identifying the router within some scope.  It MAY be 0
      when no protocols require a Router Identifier.  The field MUST
      contain a valid Router Identifier or the value zero.

   Local Interface Identifier:   The Local Interface Identifier is a
      4-byte identifier that is unique among all PIM-enabled interfaces
      on a router.

4.  Security Considerations

   The Interface Identifier is included in PIM Hello messages.  See
   [RFC4601] for security considerations regarding PIM Hello messages.
   In particular, PIM Hello messages may be forged and include an
   arbitrary Interface Identifier, or the Interface Identifier may be
   intentionally omitted.  The effects of this depend on how the
   Interface Identifier is used by other protocols.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the value 31 for the Interface ID PIM-Hello option
   defined in this document.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors thank Yiqun Cai, Heidi Ou, Liming Wei, Gorry Fairhurst,
   Bharat Joshi, and Bill Atwood for providing valuable feedback.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4601]   Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
               "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
               Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [HELLO-OPT] IANA, "PIM Hello Options", <http://www.iana.org/>.

   [PIM-PORT]  Farinacci, D., Wijnands, IJ., Venaas, S., and M.
               Napierala, "A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM", Work
               in Progress, August 2011.

   [RFC2328]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2863]   McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
               MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC4271]   Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
               Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Sameer Gulrajani
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: sameerg@cisco.com


   Stig Venaas
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: stig@cisco.com