IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 19 June 2025 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: pim@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: pim@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246A836C82C2 for <pim@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWfPqH8CvZ_8 for <pim@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D822236C82BD for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bN7r36w0pz1R8vq; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:06:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4bN7r36DDvzl0rg; Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:06:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:06:43 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <aFOa4wrALwWnuL-T@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CAHANBtKSDpw=0rnja-kHqvx8TsGbNu53dp5bUvvXv3g7WWJ2zQ@mail.gmail.com> <BAA0632D-D1BD-44FF-931A-5339A5FE9E66@innovationslab.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <BAA0632D-D1BD-44FF-931A-5339A5FE9E66@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID-Hash: MRKLYYQFVA6CX32E7A2AQIWUB5KFEFSK
X-Message-ID-Hash: MRKLYYQFVA6CX32E7A2AQIWUB5KFEFSK
X-MailFrom: eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pim.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/QoJsanyh3pbOw06NEeFaaVc9VxA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pim-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pim-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pim-leave@ietf.org>

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:43:00PM +0100, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hey Stig,
>      I agree that the all-hosts address is not specific to IGMP. However, unlike the various IPv6 multicast addresses, there isn’t an IPv4 Addressing Architecture RFC. Those IPv6 multicast addresses are defined in RFC 4291, which is referenced in the IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml)

RFC4291: The above multicast addresses are reserved and shall never be
         assigned to any multicast group.

      All Nodes Addresses:    FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
                              FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

Nothing about permanent joining required!

>      I don’t see an easy replacement for RFC 1112 in the IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml#multicast-addresses-1)

Section 11 of rfc1112bis includes already all instructions to replace rfc1112 with rfc1112bis in those
IANA registries. I think to remember we already had some IANA review for that too.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Regards,
> Brian
> 
> 
> > On Jun 13, 2025, at 22:19, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Toerless and wg
> > 
> > We should try to wrap up this draft soon and I have a few things I
> > would like to discuss first. One thing is regarding the all-hosts
> > group 224.0.0.1.
> > 
> > Toerless, you concluded that this can be left to the individual igmp
> > protocol, but to me this seems like a generic multicast host stack
> > issue.
> > 
> > I imagine there might be protocols relying on hosts responding to
> > 224.0.0.1. And also that it might be used by management tools or
> > manual testing to verify that a host is present. I don't know if this
> > is only used by IGMP. I see it more as a replacement for subnet
> > broadcast.
> > 
> > The only RFC I see from a quick search is RFC 1256 though.
> > 
> > In IPv6 the all-nodes address is a key part of the architecture and
> > not part of MLD.
> > 
> > Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stig
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list -- pim@ietf.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to pim-leave@ietf.org
> 

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status