<?xmlversion='1.0'?>version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfcSYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd'>[ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" number="9279" category="std" consensus="true" docName="draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-extension-08"ipr="trust200902"> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?>ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3"> <front> <title abbrev="IGMPv3/MLDv2message extension">Message Extension"> Internet Group Management ProtocolversionVersion 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener DiscoveryversionVersion 2 (MLDv2) Message Extension </title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9279"/> <author fullname="Mahesh Sivakumar" initials="M." surname="Sivakumar"> <organization>Juniper Networks</organization> <address> <postal> <street>64 Butler St</street> <city>Milpitas</city><code>CA 95035</code> <country>USA</country><region>CA</region> <code>95035</code> <country>United States of America</country> </postal> <email>sivakumar.mahesh@gmail.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Stig Venaas" initials="S." surname="Venaas"> <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> <address> <postal> <street>Tasman Drive</street> <city>San Jose</city><code>CA 95134</code> <country>USA</country><region>CA</region> <code>95134</code> <country>United States of America</country> </postal> <email>stig@cisco.com</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Zheng(Sandy) Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang"> <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization> <address> <postal> <street>No. 50 Software Ave, Yuhuatai District</street> <city>Nanjing</city><region/><code>210000</code> <country>China</country> </postal> <email>zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Hitoshi Asaeda" initials="H." surname="Asaeda"> <organization abbrev="NICT">National Institute of Information and Communications Technology</organization> <address> <postal> <street>4-2-1Nukui-Kitamachi</street> <city>Koganei, Tokyo</city> <region/>Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei</street> <region>Tokyo</region> <code>184-8795</code> <country>Japan</country> </postal> <email>asaeda@nict.go.jp</email> </address> </author><date/><date month="July" year="2022"/> <area>Routing</area> <workgroup>pim</workgroup> <keyword>Multicast</keyword> <abstract> <t>This document specifies a generic mechanism to extend IGMPv3 andMLDv2Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) by using a list of TLVs (Type,LengthLength, and Value). </t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <sectiontitle="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>This document defines a generic method to extend IGMPv3 <xreftarget="RFC3376"/>target="RFC3376" format="default"/> and MLDv2 <xreftarget="RFC3810"/>target="RFC3810" format="default"/> messages to accommodate information other than what is contained in the current message formats. This is done by allowing a list of TLVs(Type, Length and Value)to be used in the Additional Data section of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages. This document defines a registry for suchTLVs, while otherTLVs. Other documents will definethetheir specifictypestypes, and theirvalues,values andtheirsemantics. The extension would only be used when at least one TLV is to be added to the message. This extension also applies to the lightweight versions of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 as defined in <xreftarget="RFC5790"/>.target="RFC5790" format="default"/>. </t> <t> When this extension mechanism is used, it replaces the Additional Data section defined in IGMPv3/MLDv2 with TLVs. </t> <t> Additional Data is defined for Query messages in IGMPv3<xref target="RFC3376"/> Section 4.1.10(<xref target="RFC3376" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1.10"/>) and MLDv2<xref target="RFC3810"/> Section 5.1.12,(<xref target="RFC3810" sectionFormat="of" section="5.1.12"/>), and for Report messages in IGMPv3<xref target="RFC3376"/> Section 4.2.11(<xref target="RFC3376" sectionFormat="of" section="4.2.11"/>) and MLDv2<xref target="RFC3810"/> Section 5.2.11.(<xref target="RFC3810" sectionFormat="of" section="5.2.11"/>). </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Conventions usednumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Conventions Used inthis document"> <t>TheThis Document</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Extension Format">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Extension Format</name> <t> For each of the IGMPv3 and MLDv2 headers, a previously reserved bit is used to indicate the presence of this extension. When this extension is used, the Additional Data of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages is formatted as follows. Note that this format contains a variable number of TLVs. ItMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain at least one TLV. </t><figure title="Figure 1: Extension Format"> <artwork> <![CDATA[<figure> <name>Extension Format</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type 1 | Extension Length 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value 1 | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type 2 | Extension Length 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value 2 | . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type n | Extension Length n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Value n | . . . . . .+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure><t> <list style="empty"> <t>Extension Type: 2<dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>Extension Type:</dt> <dd>2 octets. This identifies a particular Extension Type as defined in theIGMP/MLD"IGMP/MLD ExtensionType Registry.Types" registry. If this is not the first TLV, it will follow immediately after the end of the previous one. There is no alignment orpadding. </t> <t>Extension Length: 2padding.</dd> <dt>Extension Length:</dt> <dd>2 octets. This specifies the length in octets of the following Extension Value field. The length may be zero if no value isneeded. </t> <t>Extension Value: Thisneeded.</dd> <dt>Extension Value:</dt> <dd>This field contains the value. The specification defining the Extension Type describes the length andthecontents of thisfield is according to the specification of the Extension Type. </t> </list> </t>field. </dd> </dl> <t> IGMPv3 and MLDv2 messages are defined sothatthey can fit within the networkMTU,MTU in order to avoid fragmentation. An IGMPv3/MLDv2reportReport message contains a number of records. The records are called Group Records forIGMPv3,IGMPv3 and Address Records for MLDv2. When this extension mechanism is used, the number of records in each Report messageSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be kept small enough so that the entire message, including any extensionTLVsTLVs, can fit within the network MTU. </t> <sectiontitle="Multicastnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Multicast Listener QueryExtension">Extension</name> <t>The MLDv2 QueryMessagemessage format <xreftarget="RFC3810"/>target="RFC3810" format="default"/> with extension is shown below. The E-bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 0. </t><figure title="Figure 2: MLD<figure> <name>MLD QueryExtension"> <artwork> <![CDATA[Extension</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 130 | Code | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Maximum Response Code | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | * * | | * Multicast Address * | | * * | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Resv|S| QRV | QQIC | Number of Sources (N) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | * * | | * Source Address [1] * | | * * | | +- -+ | | * * | | * Source Address [2] * | | * * | | +- . -+ . . . . . . +- -+ | | * * | | * Source Address [N] * | | * * | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> </section> <sectiontitle="Versionnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Version 2 Multicast Listener ReportExtension">Extension</name> <t>The MLDv2 ReportMessagemessage format <xreftarget="RFC3810"/>target="RFC3810" format="default"/> with extension is shown below. The E-bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 0. </t><figure title="Figure 3: MLD<figure> <name>MLD ReportExtension"> <artwork> <![CDATA[Extension</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 143 | Reserved | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved |Nr of Mcast Address Records (M)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [1] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [2] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | . . . | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Multicast Address Record [M] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]> </artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> </section> <sectiontitle="IGMPnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IGMP Membership QueryExtension">Extension</name> <t>The IGMPv3 QueryMessagemessage format <xreftarget="RFC3376"/>target="RFC3376" format="default"/> with the extension is shown below. The E-bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 0. </t><figure title="Figure 4: IGMP<figure> <name>IGMP QueryExtension"> <artwork> <![CDATA[Extension</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x11 | Max Resp Code | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Resv|S| QRV | QQIC | Number of Sources (N) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address [1] | +- -+ | Source Address [2] | +- . -+ . . . . . . +- -+ | Source Address [N] | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]> </artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> </section> <sectiontitle="IGMPnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IGMP Version 3 Membership ReportExtension">Extension</name> <t>The IGMPv3 ReportMessagemessage format <xreftarget="RFC3376"/>target="RFC3376" format="default"/> with the extension is shown below. The E-bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 1 to indicate that the extension is present. Otherwise, itMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be 0. </t><figure title="Figure 5: IGMP<figure> <name>IGMP ReportExtension"> <artwork> <![CDATA[Extension</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 0x22 | Reserved | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Reserved | Number of Group Records (M) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [1] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [2] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | . . . | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Group Record [M] . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension | ~ ~+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]> </artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="No-op TLV">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>No-op TLV</name> <t> Theno-opNo-op TLV is a No-Operation TLV thatMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored during processing. This TLV may beuseful for verifyingused to verify thatimplementations correctly implement thisthe extensionmechanism.mechanism has been implemented correctly. Note that there is no alignment requirement, so there is no need to use this Extension Type to provide alignment. </t><figure title="Figure 6: No-op<figure> <name>No-op TLVFormat"> <artwork> <![CDATA[Format</name> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[ 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | No-op Type = 0 | No-op Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | . . . . . .+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure><t> <list style="empty"> <t>No-op Type: 2<dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>No-op Type:</dt> <dd>2 octets. The type of the No-op TLV extension isthe value 0. </t> <t>Extension Length: 20.</dd> <dt>Extension Length:</dt> <dd>2 octets. This specifies the length in octets of the following Value field. The length may be zero if no value isneeded. </t> <t>Value: Thisneeded.</dd> <dt> Value:</dt> <dd>This field contains the value. As this Extension Type is always ignored, the value can be arbitrary data. The number of octets usedMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> match the specified length.contents of this field is according to the specification of the Extension Type. </t> </list> </t></dd> </dl> </section> <sectiontitle="Processingnumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Processing theextension">Extension</name> <t> The procedure specified in this documentappliesonly applies when the E-bit is set. </t> <t> If the validation of the TLVs fails, the entire Additional Data fieldMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored as specified in IGMPv3[RFC3376]<xref target="RFC3376"/> and MLDv2[RFC3810].<xref target="RFC3810"/>. The following checks must pass for the validation of the TLVs not to fail:<list style="empty"> <t></t> <ul empty="false" spacing="normal"> <li> At least one TLVMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> bepresent.</t> <t>present.</li> <li> ThereMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be any data in the IP payload after the last TLV. To check this, the parser needs to walk through each of the TLVs until there are less than four octets left in the IP payload. If there are any octets left, validation fails.</t> <t></li> <li> The total length of the ExtensionMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> exceed the remainder of the IP payload length. For this validation,oneonlyexaminesthe content of the Extension Lengthfields. </t> </list> </t>fields is examined. </li> </ul> <t> Future documents defining a new Extension TypeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specify any additional processing and validation. These rules, if any, will be examined only after the general validation(above)succeeds. </t> <t> TLVs with unsupported Extension TypesMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="Applicabilitynumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Applicability andbackwards compatibility">Backwards Compatibility</name> <t>IGMP and MLD implementations, particularly implementations on hosts, rarelychange, and thechange. The adoption process of this extension mechanism is expected to be slow.Also, asAs new extension TLVs are defined, it may take a long timebefore they arefor them to be supported. Due to this, defining new extension TLVs should not be taken lightly, and it is crucial to consider backwards compatibility.</t> <t>Implementations that do not support this extension mechanism will ignore it, as specified in[RFC3376]<xref target="RFC3376"/> and[RFC3810]. Also, as<xref target="RFC3810"/>. As mentioned in the previous section, unsupported extension TLVs are ignored. </t> <t>It is possible that a new extension TLV will onlyappliesapply toqueries,queries or only to reports, or that there may be other specific conditions for when it is to be used. A document defining a new Extension TypeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> specifyunder whatthe conditions under which the new Extension Type should be used, includingforwhich message types. ItMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also be specified what the behavior should be if a message is not used in the defined manner, e.g., if it is present in aqueryQuery message, when it was only expected to be used in reports. </t> <t>When defining new Extension Types,care should be taken to considerthe effect of partial support for the new TLV, by either the hosts or routers, on the samelink. Further, it mustlink should beconsideredcarefully considered. Further, whether there are any dependencies or restrictions on combinations between the new Extension Types and anypre-existingpreexisting ExtensionTypes.Types must be considered. </t> <t>This document defines an extension mechanism only for IGMPv3 and MLDv2. Hence, this mechanism does not apply if hosts or routers send older version messages.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>The Security Considerations of[RFC3376]<xref target="RFC3376"/> and[RFC3810]<xref target="RFC3810"/> also apply here. </t> <t>This document extends the IGMP and MLD message formats, allowing for a variable number of TLVs. Implementations must take carewhen parsing the TLVs tonot to exceed the packetboundary,boundary when parsing the TLVs, because an attacker could intentionally specify a TLV with a length exceeding the boundary. </t> <t>An implementation could add a large number of minimal TLVs in a message to increase the cost of processing themessage tomessage. This would magnify aDenial of Servicedenial-of-service attack. </t> </section> <section anchor="IANA"title="IANA Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>IANAis asked to createhas created a new registry called "IGMP/MLD Extension Types" in the "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) Type Numbers"section, with registration procedure "IETF Review" <xref target="RFC8126"/>,section andwithlists this document asathe reference. The registration procedure is "IETF Review" <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. The registry is common for IGMP and MLD.</t><t></t> <t> Two Extension Types (65534 and 65535) are provided for "Experimental Use" <xreftarget="RFC8126"/>.target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Any experiments should be confined to closed environments where it is unlikely that they may conflict with otherexperiments,experiments; see <xreftarget="RFC3692"/>. </t><t> The initial content oftarget="RFC3692" format="default"/>. </t> <t> IANA has initially populated the registryshould beasbelow.</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ Extension Type Length Name Reference -------------------------------------------------------------- 0 variable No-op [this document] 1-65533 Unassigned 65534 variable Experimental use 65535 variableshown in <xref target="extension_type_table"/></t> <table anchor="extension_type_table"> <name>IGMP/MLD Extension Types</name> <thead> <tr> <th>Extension Type</th> <th>Length</th> <th>Name</th> <th>Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>variable</td> <td>No-op</td> <td>RFC 9279</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1-65533</td> <td></td> <td>Unassigned</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td>65534-65535</td> <td>variable</td> <td>Reserved for Experimentaluse ]]></artwork> </figure></t>Use</td> <td></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3376.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3810.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3692.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5790.xml"/> </references> </references> <section anchor="ack"title="Acknowledgements">numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t>The authors thankRon Bonica, Ian Duncan, Wesley Eddy, Leonard Giuliano, Jake Holland, Tommy Pauly, Pete Resnick, Alvaro Retana and Zhaohui Zhang<contact fullname="Ron Bonica"/>, <contact fullname="Ian Duncan"/>, <contact fullname="Wesley Eddy"/>, <contact fullname="Leonard Giuliano"/>, <contact fullname="Jake Holland"/>, <contact fullname="Tommy Pauly"/>, <contact fullname="Pete Resnick"/>, <contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/>, and <contact fullname="Zhaohui Zhang"/> for reviewing the document and providing valuable feedback. </t> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3376'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3810'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8126'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3692'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5790'?> </references></back> </rfc>