Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types
"Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <pjhingra@cisco.com> Thu, 19 November 2009 12:36 UTC
Return-Path: <pjhingra@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174C43A6B1E for <pim@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0v5Xa6ndC+GT for <pim@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F903A6A70 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEADLLBEtAaHte/2dsb2JhbAC9d5dshDsEgW+BCg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,771,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="51564226"
Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.123.94]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2009 12:36:52 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAJCaopY011923; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:36:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-413.cisco.com ([72.163.129.209]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:06:19 +0530
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:06:19 +0530
Message-ID: <0C34754A9045B3419FB531A8C716E249015EE834@XMB-BGL-413.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B049489.3010504@venaas.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [pim] Registry for PIM message types
Thread-Index: AcposT/juKbPkr5gTMySoJV/B3neCQAYuqKw
References: <4B049489.3010504@venaas.com>
From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <pjhingra@cisco.com>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, pim@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Nov 2009 12:36:19.0995 (UTC) FILETIME=[E54076B0:01CA6914]
Subject: Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:36:56 -0000
Hi Stig, Perhaps there is not much room for comments :-) If appropriate you may add pointers like, recommended/MUST TTL values, Destination & Source address (v4/v6) for respective mesg. Regards, Prashant Jhingran -----Original Message----- From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig Venaas Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:13 AM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Registry for PIM message types It turns out there is no registry for PIM message types. The only thing we got is PIMv1 types as part of the IGMP registry. There is an almost complete list of message types in the sparse mode and dense mode RFCs, but none of them actually define a registry. This means there is no IANA list of PIM message types, and there are no rules for how to define new ones. I've just submitted a very simple draft that defines such a registry, see http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-venaas-pim-registry-00.txt Below are the types it defines (have I missed any?). It also says that IETF review is needed for new message types. That means an RFC is needed and it must go through IETF last call (which means that standards track RFCs are automatically qualified, but also other RFCs if we do an IETF last call). Do you think that is too strict? Message types in draft: Type Name Reference ---- ---------------------------- --------------------- 0 Hello [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 1 Register [RFC4601] 2 Register Stop [RFC4601] 3 Join/Prune [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 4 Bootstrap [RFC4601] 5 Assert [RFC3973] [RFC4601] 6 Graft [RFC3973] 7 Graft-Ack [RFC3973] 8 Candidate RP Advertisement [RFC4601] 9 State Refresh [RFC3973] 10 DF Election [RFC5015] Stig _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] Registry for PIM message types Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types Toerless Eckert
- Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
- Re: [pim] Registry for PIM message types Stig Venaas