<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.43 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pim-ipv4-in-ipv6-core-00" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.34.1 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv4 in IPv6 Core using PIM">Native IPv4 multicast in IPv6 Core using PIM</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pim-ipv4-in-ipv6-core-00"/>
    <author initials="S." surname="Venaas" fullname="Stig Venaas">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Tasman Drive</street>
          <city>San Jose</city>
          <code>CA 95134</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>svenaas@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="M." surname="Mishra" fullname="Mankamana Mishra">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>821 Alder Drive</street>
          <city>Milpitas</city>
          <code>CA 95035</code>
          <country>United States</country>
        </postal>
        <email>mankamis@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Buraiky" fullname="Salah M. Buraiky">
      <organization>Aramco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>salah.buraiky.1@aramco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="October" day="16"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PIM Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>PIM</keyword>
    <keyword>IPv6</keyword>
    <keyword>IPv4-over-IPv6</keyword>
    <keyword>Multicast</keyword>
    <keyword>RPF Vector</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 50?>

<t>This document describes how PIM Sparse-Mode can be used to construct IPv4 
multicast trees across an IPv6-only network core. This allows forwarding of
native IPv4 multicast data packets. The document specifies how to send and
receive IPv4 PIM messages with IPv6 headers, using a new well-known link-local
IPv6 multicast address, and the use of RPF vectors for reachability.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 58?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>In typical network deployments, it is preferred that the network core remains 
simple, pushing complexity to the edge. One such case involves providing a 
mix of IPv4 and IPv6 unicast and multicast at the edge while deploying only 
one address family (IPv6) in the core.</t>
      <t>For unicast, <xref target="RFC8950"/> (formerly <xref target="RFC5549"/>), allows building a RIB with
IPv4 prefixes that have IPv6 next-hops, removing the requirement for IPv4
addresses on core routers. This allows native IPv4 unicast packets to be
forwarded through a network without IPv4 addresses.</t>
      <t>This document describes how to build IPv4 multicast trees and construct 
IPv4 multicast forwarding tables to allow native IPv4 multicast through 
a network without IPv4 addresses, using PIM Sparse-Mode <xref target="RFC7761"/>.
Furthermore, it defines a well-known link-local IPv6 multicast group
address that is used for sending IPv4 PIM messages over IPv6.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", 
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> 
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="protocol-operation">
      <name>Protocol Operation</name>
      <t>In order for IPv4 PIM to communicate with IPv4 PIM neighbors without
requiring IPv4 interface addresses, we define a new ALL-PIM-4OVER6-ROUTERS
link-local IPv6 multicast group TBD that is used instead of the regular
ALL-PIM-ROUTERS group. This is used for all PIM messages that in
PIM Sparse-Mode <xref target="RFC7761"/> are sent to the ALL-PIM-ROUTERS group.</t>
      <t>Note that on a given interface, IPv4 PIM MUST operate in either the
regular mode using ALL-PIM-ROUTERS or in this new 4over6 mode using
ALL-PIM-4OVER6-ROUTERS. This determines which address link-local
PIM messages are sent to. The IPv4 PIM protocol instance MUST process only
one mode on the interface. However, an implementation MAY log or count
messages received for the other mode.</t>
      <t>Processing of link-local messages using the new mode is the same as before
with a few exceptions.</t>
      <section anchor="rpf-handling">
        <name>RPF Handling</name>
        <t>Each PIM router must determine the RPF neighbor and interface for a given 
(*,G) or (S,G).</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>If core routers have a RIB with IPv4 prefixes and IPv6 next-hops 
(e.g., via <xref target="RFC8950"/>), this information is used for the RPF lookup.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Alternatively, the RPF Vector <xref target="RFC5496"/> can be used. This allows an 
egress core router to include RPF vector(s) with the IPv6 address(es) 
of the ingress core routers in the PIM Join message. By doing so, the 
core network does not require IPv4 unicast routing information.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
      <section anchor="checksum">
        <name>Checksum</name>
        <t>IPv4 PIM messages sent to an IPv6 address are sent as IPv6 packets and
the checksum is calculated using an IPv6 "pseudo-header" as defined for
IPv6 in <xref target="RFC7761"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pim-message-encoding">
        <name>PIM Message Encoding</name>
        <t>This document uses IPv6 packets to carry PIMv2 control messages for
constructing IPv4 multicast forwarding state across an IPv6-only core.
The IPv6 Next Header value for these packets is 103, identifying PIM.</t>
        <t>For link-local PIM messages sent under this specification, the IPv6
source address MUST be the link-local address of the sending interface.
The IPv6 destination address MUST be the link-local multicast address
ALL-PIM-4OVER6-ROUTERS.  The IPv6 Hop Limit MUST be 1.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pim-hello-messages">
        <name>PIM Hello Messages</name>
        <t>Hello messages are processed as usual, except that the neighbor state
created would be for IPv6 neighbors since the source addresses are IPv6
addresses.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pim-joinprune-messages">
        <name>PIM Join/Prune Messages</name>
        <t>A PIM Join/Prune message sent under this specification uses the normal
Join/Prune message format defined in <xref target="RFC7761"/>, with the following
address-family rules:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>The Upstream Neighbor Address field MUST be an IPv6
Encoded-Unicast Address.  It identifies the upstream PIM neighbor
on the link over which the Join/Prune is sent.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The Multicast Group Address field MUST be an IPv4 Encoded-Group
Address.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The Joined Source Address and Pruned Source Address fields MUST be
IPv4 Encoded-Source Addresses.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Thus, the IPv6 packet header and the Join/Prune Upstream Neighbor
   Address identify the IPv6 PIM adjacency used in the core, while the
   group and source information carried in the Join/Prune message
   identifies IPv4 multicast state.</t>
        <t>Within one Join/Prune message sent under this specification, all
   Multicast Group Address fields, Joined Source Address fields, and
   Pruned Source Address fields MUST be of the same address family, and
   that address family MUST be IPv4.  A router MUST NOT mix IPv4 and IPv6
   group or source addresses in the same Join/Prune message.  If both
   IPv4-over-IPv6 multicast state and native IPv6 multicast state need to
   be signaled to the same neighbor, they MUST be sent in separate PIM
   messages.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="register-messages">
        <name>Register Messages</name>
        <t>It is assumed that Rendezvous Points (RPs) are located outside of the 
core; therefore, no special handling for PIM Register messages is 
defined in this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="data-plane-requirements">
        <name>Data Plane Requirements</name>
        <t>An IPv6 core router must be able to detect native IPv4 packets received 
on the (S,G) incoming interface (for switching to the Shortest Path Tree) 
and on Outgoing Interface Lists (OIFs) for Assert handling.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document does not change the security properties of <xref target="RFC7761"/>.
IPv4 PIM message are sent with IPv6 headers and if IPsec is used, it
would be for IPv6.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA is requested to assign an IPv6 link-local multicast address for
ALL-PIM-4OVER6-ROUTERS TBD.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thanks to David 'equinox' Lamparter for valuable input.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC7761">
          <front>
            <title>Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)</title>
            <author fullname="B. Fenner" initials="B." surname="Fenner"/>
            <author fullname="M. Handley" initials="M." surname="Handley"/>
            <author fullname="H. Holbrook" initials="H." surname="Holbrook"/>
            <author fullname="I. Kouvelas" initials="I." surname="Kouvelas"/>
            <author fullname="R. Parekh" initials="R." surname="Parekh"/>
            <author fullname="Z. Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang"/>
            <author fullname="L. Zheng" initials="L." surname="Zheng"/>
            <date month="March" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM). PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can use the underlying unicast routing information base or a separate multicast-capable routing information base. It builds unidirectional shared trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and it optionally creates shortest-path trees per source.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4601 by replacing it, addresses the errata filed against it, removes the optional (*,*,RP), PIM Multicast Border Router features and authentication using IPsec that lack sufficient deployment experience (see Appendix A), and moves the PIM specification to Internet Standard.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="83"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7761"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7761"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5496">
          <front>
            <title>The Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV</title>
            <author fullname="IJ. Wijnands" initials="IJ." surname="Wijnands"/>
            <author fullname="A. Boers" initials="A." surname="Boers"/>
            <author fullname="E. Rosen" initials="E." surname="Rosen"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a use of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute as defined in RFC 5384, which enables PIM to build multicast trees through an MPLS-enabled network, even if that network's IGP does not have a route to the source of the tree. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5496"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5496"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8950">
          <front>
            <title>Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop</title>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="S. Agrawal" initials="S." surname="Agrawal"/>
            <author fullname="K. Ananthamurthy" initials="K." surname="Ananthamurthy"/>
            <author fullname="K. Patel" initials="K." surname="Patel"/>
            <date month="November" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI.</t>
              <t>This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow the advertising of IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the next hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the next hop to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 next hop. This document obsoletes RFC 5549.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8950"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8950"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5549">
          <front>
            <title>Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop</title>
            <author fullname="F. Le Faucheur" initials="F." surname="Le Faucheur"/>
            <author fullname="E. Rosen" initials="E." surname="Rosen"/>
            <date month="May" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of network-layer protocols to which the address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5549"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5549"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 195?>



  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
