Skip to main content

An Interface Identifier (ID) Hello Option for PIM
RFC 6395

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from pim-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
01 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2011-10-11
01 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-10-10
01 (System) RFC published
2011-09-07
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2011-09-07
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2011-09-06
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2011-08-30
01 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-08-29
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-08-29
01 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-08-29
01 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-08-29
01 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-08-29
01 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-25
01 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-08-25
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text changed
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-25
01 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
in Section 2.2:

  The value 0 has a special meaning for the Router Identifier.  It
  means that no Router Identifier is …
[Ballot comment]
in Section 2.2:

  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.

Why is the last recommendation only a MAY? I would have expected it to be at least a SHOULD if not a MUST.

This was originally a DISCUSS. A long thread with Adrian eventually convinced me that the text is phrased from the point of view of the field: The field contains a valid router ID. Under some circumstances it MAY contain zero.

I still believe that there is a need of more clarity in the text and of explaining why there is no concern a receiver will get a garbage value and interpret it as a meaningful value from a sender that believes that Router ID is not relevant in the realm of the protocol run on that network.
2011-08-25
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-25
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-24
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-24
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-24
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-08-24
01 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
1. I suggest to mention also RFC 2863 as a reference for ifIndex. Both definitions (in 1213 and 2863) are valid, but 2863 …
[Ballot comment]
1. I suggest to mention also RFC 2863 as a reference for ifIndex. Both definitions (in 1213 and 2863) are valid, but 2863 is expressed in SMIv2 and has slight changes in semantics (not relevant for this work).

2. In Section 2.1

  The Local Interface Identifier MUST be non-zero.  The reason for
  this, is that some protocols may want to only optionally refer to an
  Interface using the Interface Identifier Hello option, and use the
  value of 0 to show that it is not referred to.  Note that the value
  of 0 is not a valid ifIndex as defined in [RFC1213].

RFC 2863 defines the InterfaceIndexOrZero TC which allows exactly for the special semantics of value 0. One more reason to provide it as a reference.
2011-08-24
01 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
1. In Section 2.1:

  The 32 bit Local Interface Identifier is selected such that it is
  unique among the router's PIM …
[Ballot discuss]
1. In Section 2.1:

  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.  Many systems
  make use of an ifIndex [RFC1213], which can be used as a Local
  Interface Identifier.

I believe that the fact that ifIndex is not guaranteed to be stored and recovered at reboot must be mentioned in the text. Actually RFC 2863 defines another object which is persistent at reboot (ifAlias) which could be used, unfortunately the SYNTAX of the object is different. It could be used in cases where persistency is required by subtyping the syntax of the object, but probably this would be an overkill.

2. In Section 2.2:

  The 32 bit Router Identifier may be used to uniquely identify the
  router.  It may be selected to be unique within some administrative
  domain, or possibly globally unique. 

Is there any example of usage of globally unique identifiers? How are these supposed to be managed?

3. also in Section 2.2:

  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.

Why is the last recommendation only a MAY? I would have expected it to be at least a SHOULD if not a MUST.
2011-08-24
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-08-24
01 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-08-23
01 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
Because the Router Identifier and Local Interface Identifier are more than 8 bits long, please specify their byte order. Although network byte order …
[Ballot comment]
Because the Router Identifier and Local Interface Identifier are more than 8 bits long, please specify their byte order. Although network byte order (the most significant byte first) is almost universally used, there are some exceptions, so it is important to spell this out.
2011-08-23
01 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-23
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-23
01 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-23
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-23
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-08-23
01 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
<a complete and utter nit>

I'd reorder sections 2.1 and 2.2.  I would have thought you'd of talked about the higher order bits …
[Ballot comment]
<a complete and utter nit>

I'd reorder sections 2.1 and 2.2.  I would have thought you'd of talked about the higher order bits first.  This is obviously non-blocking.

</a complete and utter nit>
2011-08-23
01 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-23
01 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
ifIndex can change, especially on reboot or even during a hot swap, depending on vendor and model.
Implementations/uers who choose ifIndex as an …
[Ballot comment]
ifIndex can change, especially on reboot or even during a hot swap, depending on vendor and model.
Implementations/uers who choose ifIndex as an identifier should be aware of this lack of stability.
Since ifIndex is mentioned as one choice of identifer, the document should point out the possibility of change.
2011-08-23
01 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-22
01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-22
01 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-22
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-21
01 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-19
01 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
1st sentence of section 2: saying that this identifies
the interface of a *neighboring* router is a tiny bit
confusing, I suggest saying …
[Ballot comment]
1st sentence of section 2: saying that this identifies
the interface of a *neighboring* router is a tiny bit
confusing, I suggest saying it identifies an interface
on a router for that router's neighbors to use.

Just checking: I'm guessing there's no need to do
anything, but just in case - I imagine that ifIndex
values are often sequential small integers
and hence guessable and that the router identifier
is often an IPv4 address for the router and hence
known, so are there any possible ways to abuse the
fact that anyone could easily guess an Interface ID?
2011-08-19
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-08-14
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2011-08-14
01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2011-08-14
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2011-08-14
01 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2011-08-12
01 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-08-08
01 Amanda Baber
IANA understands that there is a single action that is required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

In the PIM-Hello Options registry of …
IANA understands that there is a single action that is required to be
completed upon approval of this document.

In the PIM-Hello Options registry of the Protocol Independent Multicast
(PIM) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xml

IANA has temporarily registered the value 31 for the Interface
Identifier Hello option defined in this document. IANA will make the
registration permanent and change the reference to the approved document.

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
the document.
2011-08-01
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2011-08-01
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2011-07-23
01 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-07-23
01 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <pim@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt> (An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast
WG (pim) to consider the following document:
- 'An Interface ID Hello Option for PIM'
  <draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-08-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

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.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
2011-07-22
01 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-08-25
2011-07-22
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-22
01 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested
2011-07-22
01 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-07-22
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-07-22
01 (System) Last call text was added
2011-07-22
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-07-22
01 Adrian Farrel Last Call text changed
2011-06-21
01 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-06-16
01 Amy Vezza
PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01
=================================================

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01
=================================================

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Mike McBride is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed the
document, and believe it is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The document has undergone thorough review within IETF's Multicast
community.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
internationalization or XML?

No

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the interested community has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
those concerns here.

I have no concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish the document. The
participation has been with individuals from a variety of vendors and
providers. The authors made minor changes based upon feedback during the
wglc.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state
If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
completion? Are there normative references that are downward
references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
for them [RFC3967].

Yes. Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section exists. IANA has temporarily assigned
the value 31 for the Interface Identifier Hello option and IANA is being
requested to make this assignment permanent.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

Not applicable.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Writeup. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents.

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.
2011-06-16
01 Amy Vezza Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-06-16
01 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'Mike McBride (mmcbride@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-06-07
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01.txt
2011-04-22
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-00.txt