[pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 18 June 2025 15:43 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 EEB94367D41B for <pim@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:13 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=innovationslab-net.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 iINtlojUvQhU for <pim@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C76A367D413 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-450ce3a2dd5so66631865e9.3 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=innovationslab-net.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1750261392; x=1750866192; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NKa7GUd/nrJP7bGtyqLur8AH6/Sx+Cb8KTIr4EtbZG8=; b=HR1FBdac7G9z4ZdAUeVmOdIgKEuYV7ghN/LQs70iQq9D0SZuAVPDrq8X620FRHHutl vbsXX2Z/xCb9s5f2+v1S+EH6SvNI/hgC43y1kW3kTLkps+uG4dC/MqZzFVP3VwY486oq Ug2o8vi6ewHKtd1gGqZhYUQDqIVde8nRZJyWXvNNCNig7Fu4aE2+L5EU1kL9o7inbnAO JRFLRnbki+3EDH1dNpTXTz6fkrc3Ot8E6sNEET1eGHR5uKdiBLGyqMO0G1s/ppDUK7mb GXo4pZaD2hEO86U+zcrvN1FV61soKdjQXVS0Zc27mTFNou1he7RuZVIv0YBSy6t59VgX YY2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750261392; x=1750866192; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NKa7GUd/nrJP7bGtyqLur8AH6/Sx+Cb8KTIr4EtbZG8=; b=V78vkfxZ0n47oq6s7ajgw7wcIwmdRr22gSpLQzVcnNlgJerhn7dTAAodmb3YO+4M7T GuEipfAXwq8CZmoZ89Tr2u3nsR7kiRHNbSYdn4fLu7jDhnXgENdh8buaFvcWqhD89pRu G5LjpBgdcJ2fF7nrsOcjhqpDodIQEB5Ia4ZNjoOaCLVDSu/U7s3WQFc/OF0Bscnb+IJO Qpate6UztcLLMHBt5GGbVKi7QoB/qL6n+v5M3EfP262P1YrKtssr8wJnDTl6FRwBpstz HQegf8Xn41LSRvrzjBOaN4ipiUzFu6IcVFxO3DSq9h8n+OszkNILUJEs1INKWPHxAzqH JCeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyVtxOvuDoI1FVFa0tAsLcOMt0Yg63E/6AvU2izLLqDIvdQQ4GL K7+UHo112pbQpCFUQCg1hAWMk6cVLOW0myjLNBVCB9FSK3VCoarywSc4njKnXj7VHvc=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncskEQWAUPflkn/Lih2ZmabUvx2O0cg8KTQe1KCTMtLa7CjW+JyBhmMeJred8Nv f3Nu5SubGbuCp3YhhnlAXXURmc3KJADzWtFUK1uYgfy6PXq9/CBE2tsAlavG/D0rJX+ElS9tYuF 64lfoXJ/EdQphp9ymmEBY7O0ZGEuLpuGgt+cPuWaY/7qibchm167wfOCgNBDdQ3gIkQzoozj099 x6KP5+Sf3UZpjz1/1n+aYVLCmRRTZUxnX3CV8Q2IyZ2bHft36NXkUhmPPIJKfrRJly3KzpZTsIW UxKgu8o3ExpynVZt4nT4CkFelZdttN/bDWXOdNbOrch6itL8qSQyz85wP2KwPoLnXW8UBqMAXBT rzylrQ+LyCOQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHTRXqMiZIHgFHy6VVRkitAhLWkAhkAkNRjBLVljVlwXABJYY/8j8cFd+lgVB2ZGPSRJYMUiA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1d06:b0:450:c20d:64c3 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4533caad17fmr174247675e9.18.1750261391992; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([194.74.0.84]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4535969dc4bsm12812535e9.0.2025.06.18.08.43.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-Id: <BAA0632D-D1BD-44FF-931A-5339A5FE9E66@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49FFF7F9-83F1-492E-B14B-E9226AF423E1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:43:00 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBtKSDpw=0rnja-kHqvx8TsGbNu53dp5bUvvXv3g7WWJ2zQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
References: <CAHANBtKSDpw=0rnja-kHqvx8TsGbNu53dp5bUvvXv3g7WWJ2zQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: DTSKAYP3UOM36N7BXYP6IYPB5PT4CJCR
X-Message-ID-Hash: DTSKAYP3UOM36N7BXYP6IYPB5PT4CJCR
X-MailFrom: brian@innovationslab.net
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, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
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/qqaR4LutNsNf8Q5UQ6nnsh3JHys>
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>
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)
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)
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
- [pim] rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Stig Venaas
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Brian Haberman
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Toerless Eckert
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Toerless Eckert
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Brian Haberman
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Brian Haberman
- [pim] Re: rfc1112bis and 224.0.0.1 Toerless Eckert