Re: [pim] Call for adoption: draft-venaas-pim-igmp-mld-extension

Hi,

I like the idea and also wanted to add such optional fields in IGMPv3/MLDv2 that can be used for various purposes. The reasons why I hesitated to propose the additional optional fields in IGMPv3/MLDv2 are as follows;

This I-D says;
   The extension will be part of additional data as mentioned in
   [RFC3810] Section 5.1.12 (resp.  [RFC3376] Section 4.1.10) for query
   messages and [RFC3810] Section 5.2.12 (resp.  [RFC3376]
   Section 4.2.11) for report messages.
However, for example, sect.4.1.10 in rfc3376 says;
   If the Packet Length field in the IP header of a received Query
   indicates that there are additional octets of data present, beyond
   the fields described here, IGMPv3 implementations MUST include those
   octets in the computation to verify the received IGMP Checksum, but
   MUST otherwise ignore those additional octets.  When sending a Query,
   an IGMPv3 implementation MUST NOT include additional octets beyond
   the fields described here.
From this last sentence, I understand hosts accepts the longer IGMPv3 query (if the checksum is correct) but ignores the additional fields for the further processes. This may be Ok for existing (conventional) implementations as they simply ignore the additional fields, which they don't understand/proceed. However, you should investigate and mention the situations and conditions in which conventional hosts (that don't support this I-D) and new hosts (that support this I-D) exist in a LAN. Moreover, according to rfc3376, the new hosts that support this I-D must also support rfc3376, which seems a contradiction.

One more another thing is that since IGMP/MLD classifies their version by the packet length, we cannot propose IGMPv4/MLDv3 if you allow this variable length fields in IGMPv3/MLDv2.

If lucky this I-D is accepted, don't forget to refer Lightweight-IGMPv3/MLDv2 [RFC5790] as they also define the standard IGMPv3/MLDv2 formats.

Regards,

Hitoshi

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 8:38, Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hope everyone is doing well hunkering down.
>  
> Today begins a two week call for adoption for https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-venaas-pim-igmp-mld-extension-01.txt.
>  
> Please give it a read (just six pages) and let us know whether or not you support the adoption of this proposal for defining the extensions of IGMP/MLD using a new message type.
>  
> Thanks,
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim