Address Resolution Mechanisms for IP Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks
draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-06
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4947.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marie-Jose Montpetit , Gorry Fairhurst | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2007-03-02) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4947 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Mark Townsley | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-06
Internet Engineering Task Force Gorry Fairhurst
Internet Draft University of Aberdeen
Expires: September 1, 2007 Marie-Jose Montpetit
Motorola Connected
Home Solutions
Category: Draft intended as INFORMATIONAL March 2007
Address Resolution Mechanisms for IP Datagrams over MPEG-2 Networks
draft-ietf-ipdvb-ar-06.txt
Status of this Draft
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2007.
Abstract
This document describes the process of binding/associating IPv4/IPv6
addresses with MPEG-2 Transport Streams (TS). This procedure is
known as Address Resolution (AR), or Neighbour Discovery (ND). Such
address resolution complements the higher layer resource discovery
tools that are used to advertise IP sessions.
In MPEG-2 Networks, an IP address must be associated with a Packet
ID (PID) value and a specific Transmission Multiplex. The document
reviews current methods appropriate to a range of technologies (DVB,
ATSC, DOCSIS, and variants). It also describes the interaction with
well-known protocols for address management including DHCP, ARP, and
the ND protocol, and provides guidance on usage.
Expires September 2007 [page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Bridging and Routing
2. Convention used in the document
3. Address Resolution Requirement
3.1 Unicast Support
3.2 Multicast Support
4. MPEG-2 Address Resolution
4.1 Static configuration.
4.1.1 MPEG-2 Cable Networks
4.2 MPEG-2 Table-Based Address Resolution
4.2.1 IP/MAC Notification Table (INT) and its usage
4.2.2 Multicast Mapping Table (MMT) and its usage
4.2.3 Application Information Table (AIT) and its usage
4.2.4 Address Resolution in ATSC
4.2.5 Comparison of SI/PSI table approaches
4.3 IP-based address resolution for TS Logical Channels
4.3.1 IP-based multicast resolution of TS Logical Channels
5. Mapping IP addresses to MAC/NPA addresses
5.1 Uni-directional links supporting uni-directional connectivity
5.2 Uni-directional links with bi-directional connectivity
5.3 Bi-directional links
5.4 AR Server
5.5 DHCP Tuning
5.6 IP Multicast AR
5.6.1 Multicast/Broadcast addressing for UDLR
6. Link Layer Support
6.1 ULE without a destination MAC/NPA address (D=1)
6.2 ULE with a destination MAC/NPA address (D=0)
6.3 MPE without LLC/SNAP Encapsulation
6.4 MPE with LLC/SNAP Encapsulation
6.5 ULE with Bridging Header Extension (D=1)
6.6 ULE with Bridging Header Extension and NPA Address (D=0)
6.7 MPE with LLC/SNAP and Bridging
7. Conclusions
8. Security Considerations
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
11. Author's Addresses
12. IPR Notices
13. Copyright Statements
14. IANA Considerations
Expires September 2007 [page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
1. Introduction
The MPEG-2 Transport Stream (TS) provides a time-division
multiplexed (TDM) stream that may contain audio, video and data
information, including encapsulated IP Datagrams [RFC4259], defined
in specification ISO/IEC 138181 [ISO-MPEG2]. Each Layer-2 (L2)
frame, known as a TS Packet, contains a 4 byte header and a 184 byte
payload. Each TS Packet is associated with a single TS Logical
Channel, identified by a 13-bit Packet ID (PID) value that is
carried in the MPEG-2 TS Packet header.
The MPEG-2 standard also defines a control plane that may be used to
transmit control information to Receivers in the form of System
Information (SI) Tables [ETSI-SI], [ETSI-SI1], or Program Specific
Information (PSI) Tables.
To utilize the MPEG-2 TS as a Layer-2 (L2) link supporting IP, a
sender must associate an IP address with a particular Transmission
Multiplex, and within the multiplex identify the specific PID to be
used. This document calls this mapping an Address Resolution (AR)
function. In some AR schemes, the MPEG-2 TS address space is sub-
divided into logical contexts known as Platforms [DVB-DAT]. Each
Platform associates an IP service provider with a separate context
that share a common MPEG-2 TS (use the same PID value).
MPEG-2 Receivers may use a Network Point of Attachment (NPA)
[RFC4259] to uniquely identify a L2 node within an MPEG-2
transmission network. An example of an NPA is the IEEE Medium Access
Control (MAC) address. Where such addresses are used, these must
also be signalled by the AR procedure. Finally, address resolution
could signal the format of the data being transmitted, for example,
the encapsulation, any L2 encryption method and any compression
scheme [RFC4259].
The numbers of Receivers connected via a single MPEG-2 link may be
much larger than found in other common LAN technologies, (e.g.
Ethernet). This has implications on design/configuration of the
address resolution mechanisms. Current routing protocols, and some
multicast application protocols also do not scale to arbitrary large
numbers of participants. Such networks do not by themselves
introduce an appreciable subnetwork round trip delay, however many
practical MPEG-2 transmission networks are built using links that
may introduce significant path delay (satellite links, use of dial-
up modem return, cellular return, etc). This higher delay may need
to be accommodated for by address resolution protocols that use this
service.
1.1 Bridging and Routing
The following two figures illustrate the use of AR for a routed and
a bridged subnetwork. Various other combinations of L2 and L3
forwarding may also be used over MPEG-2 links (including Receivers
Expires September 2007 [page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
that are IP end hosts and end hosts directly connected to bridged
LAN segments).
Broadcast Link AR
- - - - - - - - -
| |
\/
1a 2b 2a
+--------+ +--------+
----+ R1 +----------+---+ R2 +----
+--------+ MPEG-2 | +--------+
Link |
| +--------+
+---+ R3 +----
| +--------+
|
| +--------+
+---+ R4 +----
| +--------+
|
|
Figure 1: A routed MPEG-2 link feeding three downstream routers (R2-
R4). AR takes place at the Encapsulator (R1) to identify each
Receiver at Layer 2 within the IP subnetwork (R2, etc).
When considering unicast communication from R1 to R2, several L2
addresses are involved:
1a is the L2 (sending) interface address of R1 on the MPEG-2 link
2b is the L2 (receiving) interface address of R2 on the MPEG-2 link
2a is the L2 (sending) interface address of R2 on the next hop link
AR for the MPEG-2 link allows R1 to determine the L2 address (2b)
corresponding to the next hop Receiver, router R2.
Figure 2 shows a bridged topology. The Encapsulator associates a
destination MAC/NPA address with each bridged PDU sent on an MPEG-2
link. Two methods are defined by ULE [RFC4326]:
The simplest method uses the L2 address of the transmitted frame.
This is the MAC address corresponding to the destination within the
L2 subnetwork (the next hop router, 2b of R2). This requires each
Receiver (B4) to associate the receiving MPEG-2 interface with the
set of MAC addresses that exist on the L2 subnetworks that it feeds.
Similar considerations apply when IP-based tunnels support L1/L2
services (including the use of UDLR [RFC3077]).
It is also possible for a bridging Encapsulator (B1) to encapsulate
a PDU with a link-specific header that also contains the MAC/NPA
address associated with a Receiver L2 interface on the MPEG-2 link
(figure 2). In this case, the destination MAC/NPA address of the
Expires September 2007 [page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
encapsulated frame is set to the Receiver MAC/NPA address (y),
rather than the address of the final L2 destination. At a different
level, an AR binding is also required for R1 to associate the
destination L2 address 2b with R2. In a subnetwork using bridging,
the systems R1, R2 will normally use standard IETF-defined AR
mechanisms (e.g. IPv4 Address Resolution Protocol, ARP [RFC826] and
the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol, ND [RFC2461) edge-to-edge
across the IP subnetwork.
Subnetwork AR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| MPEG-2 Link AR |
- - - - - - - - -
| | | |
\/ \/
1a x y 2b 2a
+--------+ +----+ +----+ +--------+
----+ R1 +--| B1 +----------+---+ B2 +--+ R2 +----
+--------+ +----+ MPEG-2 | +----+ +--------+
Link |
| +----+
+---+ B3 +--
| +----+
|
| +----+
+---+ B4 +--
| +----+
|
Figure 2: A bridged MPEG-2 link feeding three downstream bridges
(B2-B4). AR takes place at the Encapsulator (B1) to identify each
Receiver at L2 (B2-B4). AR also takes place across the IP subnetwork
allowing the feed router (R1) to identify the downstream Routers at
Layer 2 (R2, etc).
Methods also exist to assign IP addresses to Receivers within a
network (e.g. stateless autoconfiguration [RFC2461], DHCP [RFC2131],
DHCPv6 [RFC3315], stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736]). Receivers may also
participate in remote configuration of the L3 IP addresses used in
connected equipment (e.g. using DHCP-Relay [RFC3046]).
The remainder of this document describes current mechanisms and
their use to associate an IP address with the corresponding TS
Multiplex, PID value, the MAC/NPA address and/or Platform ID. A
range of approaches is described, including Layer 2 mechanisms
(using MPEG-2 SI tables), and protocols at the IP level (including
ARP [RFC826] and the ND [RFC2461]). Interactions and dependencies
between these mechanisms and the encapsulation methods are
described. The document does not propose or define a new protocol,
Expires September 2007 [page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
but does provide guidance on issues that would need to be considered
to supply IP-based address resolution.
2. Conventions used in this document
AIT: Application Information Table specified by the Multimedia Home
Platform (MHP) specifications [ETSI-MHP]. This table may carry
IPv4/IPv6 to MPEG-2 TS address resolution information.
ATSC: Advanced Television Systems Committee [ATSC]. A framework and
a set of associated standards for the transmission of video, audio,
and data using the ISO MPEG-2 standard [ISO-MPEG2].
b: bit. For example, one byte consists of 8b.
B: Byte. Groups of bytes are represented in Internet byte order.
DSM-CC: Digital Storage Media Command and Control [ISO-DSMCC]. A
format for transmission of data and control information carried in
an MPEG-2 Private Section, defined by the ISO MPEG-2 standard.
DVB: Digital Video Broadcasting [DVB]. A framework and set of
associated standards published by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) for the transmission of video, audio, and
data, using the ISO MPEG-2 Standard.
DVB-RCS: Digital Video Broadcast Return Channel via Satellite. A bi-
directional IPv4/IPv6 service employing low-cost Receivers.
Encapsulator: A network device that receives PDUs and formats these
into Payload Units (known here as SNDUs) for output as a stream of
TS Packets.
Feed Router: The router delivering the IP service over a
Unidirectional Link.
INT: Internet/MAC Notification Table. A uni-directional address
resolution mechanism using SI and/or PSI Tables.
L2: Layer 2, the link layer.
L3: Layer 3, the IP network layer.
MAC: Medium Access Control [IEEE-802.3]. A link-layer protocol
defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard (or by Ethernet v2).
MAC Address: A 6 byte link layer address of the format described by
the Ethernet IEEE 802 standard (see also NPA).
MAC Header: The link-layer header of the IEEE 802.3 standard [IEEE-
802.3 or Ethernet v2. It consists of a 6 byte destination
Expires September 2007 [page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
address, 6 byte source address, and 2 byte type field (see also NPA,
LLC).
MHP: Multimedia Home Platform. An integrated MPEG-2 multimedia
receiver, that may (in some cases) support IPv4/IPv6 services [ETSI-
MHP].
MMT: Multicast Mapping Table (proprietary extension to DVB-RCS
[ETSI-RCS] defining an AR table that maps IPv4 multicast addresses
to PID values).
MPE: Multiprotocol Encapsulation [ETSI-DAT], [ATSC-A90], [ATSC-
A90G]. A method that encapsulates PDUs, forming a DSM-CC Table
Section. Each Section is sent in a series of TS Packets using a
single Stream (TS Logical Channel).
MPEG-2: A set of standards specified by the Motion Picture Experts
Group (MPEG), and standardized by the International Standards
Organisation (ISO/IEC 113818-1) [ISO-MPEG2], and ITU-T (in H.220).
NPA: Network Point of Attachment. A 6 byte destination address
(resembling an IEEE MAC address) within the MPEG-2 transmission
network that is used to identify individual Receivers or groups of
Receivers [RFC4259].
PAT: Program Association Table. An MPEG-2 PSI control table. It
associates each program with the PID value that is used to send the
associated PMT. The table is sent using the well-known PID value of
0x000, and is required for an MPEG-2 compliant Transport Stream.
PDU: Protocol Data Unit. Examples of a PDU include Ethernet frames,
IPv4 or IPv6 Datagrams, and other network packets.
PID: Packet Identifier [ISO-MPEG2]. A 13 bit field carried in the
header of each TS Packet. This identifies the TS Logical Channel to
which a TS Packet belongs [ISO-MPEG2]. The TS Packets that form the
parts of a Table Section, or other Payload Unit must all carry the
same PID value. The all ones PID value indicates a Null TS Packet
introduced to maintain a constant bit rate of a TS Multiplex. There
is no required relationship between the PID values used for TS
Logical Channels transmitted using different TS Multiplexes.
PMT: Program Map Table. An MPEG-2 PSI control table that associates
the PID values used by the set of TS Logical Channels/ Streams that
comprise a program [ISO-MPEG2]. The PID value used to send the PMT
for a specific program is defined by an entry in the PAT.
Private Section: A syntactic structure constructed according to
Table 2-30 of [ISO-MPEG2]. The structure may be used to identify
private information (i.e. not defined by [ISO-MPEG2]) relating to
one or more elementary streams, or a specific MPEG-2 program, or the
entire Transport Stream. Other Standards bodies, e.g. ETSI, ATSC,
have defined sets of table structures using the private_section
Expires September 2007 [page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
structure. A Private Section is transmitted as a sequence of TS
Packets using a TS Logical Channel. A TS Logical Channel may carry
sections from more than one set of tables.
PSI: Program Specific Information [ISO-MPEG2]. PSI is used to convey
information about services carried in a TS Multiplex. It is carried
in one of four specifically identified table section constructs
[ISO-MPEG2], see also SI Table.
Receiver: Equipment that processes the signal from a TS Multiplex
and performs filtering and forwarding of encapsulated PDUs to the
network-layer service (or bridging module when operating at the
link-layer).
SI Table: Service Information Table [ISO-MPEG2]. In this document,
this term describes a table that is been defined by another
standards body to convey information about the services carried in a
TS Multiplex. A Table may consist of one or more Table Sections,
however, all sections of a particular SI Table must be carried over
a single TS Logical Channel [ISO-MPEG2].
SNDU: Subnetwork Data Unit. An encapsulated PDU sent as an MPEG-2
Payload Unit.
Table Section: A Payload Unit carrying all or a part of an SI or PSI
Table [ISO-MPEG2].
TS: Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2], a method of transmission at the
MPEG-2 level using TS Packets; it represents layer 2 of the ISO/OSI
reference model. See also TS Logical Channel and TS Multiplex.
TS Logical Channel: Transport Stream Logical Channel. In this
document, this term identifies a channel at the MPEG-2 level [ISO-
MPEG2]. This exists at level 2 of the ISO/OSI reference model. All
packets sent over a TS Logical Channel carry the same PID value
(this value is unique within a specific TS Multiplex). The term
"Stream" is defined in MPEG-2 [ISO-MPEG2]. This describes the
content carried by a specific TS Logical Channel (see, ULE Stream).
Some PID values are reserved (by MPEG-2) for specific signaling.
Other standards (e.g., ATSC, DVB) also reserve specific PID values.
TS Multiplex: In this document, this term defines a set of MPEG-2 TS
Logical Channels sent over a single lower layer connection. This may
be a common physical link (i.e. a transmission at a specified symbol
rate, FEC setting, and transmission frequency) or an encapsulation
provided by another protocol layer (e.g. Ethernet, or RTP over IP).
The same TS Logical Channel may be repeated over more than one TS
Multiplex (possibly associated with a different PID value)
[RFC4259], for example to redistribute the same multicast content to
two terrestrial TV transmission cells.
TS Packet: A fixed-length 188B unit of data sent over a TS Multiplex
[ISO-MPEG2]. Each TS Packet carries a 4B header.
Expires September 2007 [page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
UDL: Unidirectional link: A one-way transmission link. For example,
and IP over DVB link using a broadcast satellite link.
ULE: Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE). A
scheme that encapsulates PDUs, into SNDUs that are sent in a series
of TS Packets using a single TS Logical Channel [RFC4326].
ULE Stream: An MPEG-2 TS Logical Channel that carries only ULE
encapsulated PDUs. ULE Streams may be identified by definition of a
stream_type in SI/PSI [RFC4326, ISO-MPEG2].
Expires September 2007 [page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
3. Address Resolution Requirements
The MPEG IP address resolution process is independent of the choice
of encapsulation and needs to support a set of IP over MPEG-2
encapsulation formats, including Multi-Protocol Encapsulation (MPE)
([ETSI-DAT], [ATSC-A90]) and the IETF-defined Unidirectional
Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) [RFC4326].
The general IP over MPEG-2 AR requirements are summarized below:
A scalable architecture that may support large numbers of
systems within the MPEG-2 network [RFC4259].
A protocol version, to indicate the specific AR protocol in use
and which may include the supported encapsulation method.
A method (e.g. well-known L2/L3 address/addresses) to identify
the AR Server sourcing the AR information.
A method to represent IPv4/IPv6 AR information (including
security mechanisms to authenticate the AR information to
protect against address masquerading [RFC3756]).
A method to install AR information associated with clients at
the AR Server (registration).
A method for transmission of AR information from an AR Server
to clients that minimise the transmission cost (link local
multicast, is preferable to subnet broadcast).
Incremental update of the AR information held by clients.
Procedures for purging clients of stale AR information.
An MPEG-2 transmission network may support multiple IP networks. If
this is the case, it is important to recognise the scope within
which an address is resolved, to prevent packets from one addressed
scope leaking into other scopes [RFC4259]. Examples of overlapping
IP address assignments include:
(i) Private unicast addresses (e.g. in IPv4, 10/8 prefix;
172.16/12 prefix; 192.168/16 prefix). Packets with these
addresses should be confined to one addressed area. IPv6
also defines link-local addresses that must not be
forwarded beyond the link on which they were first sent.
(ii) Local scope multicast addresses. These are only valid
within the local area (examples for IPv4 include:
224.0.0/24; 224.0.1/24). Similar cases exist for some IPv6
multicast addresses [RFC2375].
(iii) Scoped multicast addresses [RFC2365] [RFC2375].
Expires September 2007 [page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
Forwarding of these addresses is controlled by the scope
associated with the address. The addresses are only valid
within an addressed area (e.g. the 239/8 [RFC2365]).
Overlapping address assignments may also occur at L2, where the same
MAC/NPA address is used to identify multiple Receivers [RFC4259]:
(i) An MAC/NPA unicast address must be unique within the
addressed area. The IEEE-assigned MAC addresses used in
Ethernet LANs are globally unique. If the addresses are
not globally unique, an address must only be re-used by
Receivers in different addressed (scoped) areas.
(ii) The MAC/NPA address broadcast address (an all ones L2
address). Traffic with this address should be confined to
one addressed area.
(iii) IP and other protocols may view sets of L3 multicast
addresses as link-local. This may produce unexpected results
if frames with the corresponding multicast L2 addresses are
distributed to systems in a different L3 network or
multicast scope (sections 3.2 and 5.6).
Reception of unicast packets destined for another addressed area
will lead to an increase in the rate of received packets by systems
connected via the network. Reception of the additional network
traffic may contribute to processing load, but should not lead to
unexpected protocol behaviour, providing that systems can be
uniquely addressed at L2. It does however introduce a potential
Denial of Service (DoS) opportunity. When the Receiver operates as
an IP router, the receipt of such a packet can lead to unexpected
protocol behaviour.
3.1 Unicast Support
Unicast address resolution is required at two levels.
At the lower level, the IP (or MAC) address needs to be associated
with a specific TS Logical Channel (PID value) and the corresponding
TS Multiplex (section 4). Each Encapsulator within an MPEG-2 Network
is associated with a set of unique TS Logical Channels (PID values)
that it sources [ETSI-DAT, RFC4259]. Within a specific scope, the
same unicast IP address may therefore be associated with more than
one Stream, and each Stream contributes different content (e.g. when
several different IP Encapsulators contribute IP flows destined to
the same Receiver). MPEG-2 Networks may also replicate IP packets
to send the same content (simulcast) to different Receivers or via
different TS Multiplexes. The configuration of the MPEG-2 Network
must prevent a Receiver accepting duplicated copies of the same IP
packet.
Expires September 2007 [page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
At the upper level, the AR procedure needs to associate an IP
address with a specific MAC/NPA address (section 5).
3.2 Multicast Support
Multicast is an important application for MPEG-2 Transmission
Networks, since it exploits the advantages of native support for
link broadcast. Multicast address resolution occurs at the network-
level in associating a specific L2 address with an IP Group
Destination Address (section 5.6). In IPv4 and IPv6 over Ethernet,
this association is normally a direct mapping, and this is the
default method also specified in both ULE [RFC4326] and MPE [ETSI-
DAT].
Address resolution must also occur at the MPEG-2 level (section 4).
The goal of this multicast address resolution is to allow a receiver
to associate an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast address with a specific TS
Logical Channel and the corresponding TS Multiplex [RFC4259]. This
association needs to permit a large number of active multicast
groups, and should minimise the processing load at the Receiver when
filtering and forwarding IP multicast packets (e.g. by distributing
the multicast traffic over a number of TS Logical Channels). Schemes
that allow hardware filtering can be beneficial, since these may
relieve the drivers and operating systems from discarding unwanted
multicast traffic.
There are two specific functions required for address resolution in
IP multicast over MPEG-2 Networks:
(i) Mapping IP multicast groups to the underlying MPEG-2 TS Logical
Channel (PID) and the MPEG-2 TS Multiplex at the Encapsulator.
(ii) Provide signalling information to allow a Receiver to
locate an IP multicast flow within an MPEG-2 TS Multiplex.
Methods are required to identify the scope of an address when an
MPEG-2 Network supports several logical IP networks and carries
groups within different multicast scopes [RFC4259].
Appropriate procedures need to specify the correct action when the
same multicast group is available on separate TS Logical Channels.
This could arise when different Encapsulators contribute IP packets
with the same IP Group Destination Address in the ASM address range.
Another case arises when a Receiver could receive more than one copy
of the same packet (e.g. when packets are replicated across
different TS Logical Channels, or even different TS Multiplexes, a
method known as Simulcasting [ETSI-DAT]). At the IP level, the
host/router may be unaware of this duplication and this needs to be
detected by other means.
Expires September 2007 [page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
When the MPEG-2 Network is peered to the multicast-enabled Internet,
an arbitrarily large number of IP multicast group destination
addresses may be in use, and the set forwarded on the transmission
network may be expected to vary significantly with time. Some uses
of IP multicast employ a range of addresses to support a single
application (e.g., ND [RFC2461], LCT [RFC3451], WEBRC [RFC3738]).
The current set of active addresses may be determined dynamically
via a multicast group membership protocol (e.g., IGMP [RFC3376], MLD
[RFC3810]), via multicast routing (e.g., PIM [RFC4601]) and/or other
means (e.g. [RFC3819], [RFC4605]), however each active address
requires a binding by the AR method. There are therefore advantages
in using a method that does not need to explicitly advertise an AR
binding for each IP traffic flow, but is able to distribute traffic
across a number of L2 TS Logical Channels (e.g., using a
hash/mapping that resembles the mapping from IP addresses to MAC
addresses [RFC1112, RFC2464]). Such methods can reduce the volume of
AR information that needs to be distributed, and reduce the AR
processing.
Section 5.6 describes the binding of IP multicast addresses to
MAC/NPA addresses.
Expires September 2007 [page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
4. MPEG-2 Address Resolution
The first part of this section describes the role of MPEG-2
signalling to identify streams (TS Logical Channels [RFC4259])
within the L2 infrastructure.
At L2, the MPEG-2 Transport Stream [ISO-MPEG2] identifies the
existence and format of a Stream, using a combination of two PSI
tables: the Programme Association Table (PAT) and entries in the
program element loop of a Programme Map Table (PMT). PMT Tables are
sent infrequently, and are typically small in size. The PAT is sent
using the well-known PID value of 0X000. This table provides the
correspondence between a program_number and a PID value. (The
program_number is the numeric label associated with a program.) Each
program in the Table is associated with a specific PID value, used
to identify a TS Logical Channel (i.e. a TS). The identified TS is
used to send the PMT, which associates a set of PID values with the
individual components of the programme. This approach de-references
the PID values when the MPEG-2 Network includes multiplexors or re-
multiplexors that renumber the PID values of the TS Logical Channels
that they process.
In addition to signalling the Receiver with the PID value assigned
to a Stream, PMT entries indicate the presence of Streams using ULE
and MPE to the variety of devices that may operate in the MPEG-2
transmission network (multiplexors, remultiplexors, rate shapers,
advertisement insertion equipment, etc).
A multiplexor or remultiplexor may change the PID values associated
with a Stream during the multiplexing process, the new value being
reflected in an updated PMT. TS Packets that carry a PID value that
is not associated with a PMT entry (an orphan PID), may, and usually
will, be dropped by ISO 13818-1 compliant L2 equipment, resulting in
the Stream not being forwarded across the transmission network. In
networks that do not employ any intermediate devices (e.g. scenarios
C,E,F of [RFC4259]), or where devices have other means to determine
the set of PID values in use, the PMT table may still be sent (but
is not required for this purpose).
Although the basic PMT information may be used to identify the
existence of IP traffic, it does not associate a Stream with an IP
prefix/address. The remainder of the section describes IP addresses
resolution mechanisms relating to MPEG-2.
4.1 Static configuration.
The static mapping option, where IP addresses or flows are
statically mapped to specific PIDs is the equivalent to signalling
"out-of-band". The application programmer, installing engineer, or
user receives the mapping via some outside means, not in the MPEG-2
TS. This is useful for testing, experimental networks, small
subnetworks and closed domains.
Expires September 2007 [page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
A pre-defined set of IP addresses may be used within a MPEG-2
transmission network. Prior knowledge of the active set of addresses
allows appropriate AR records to be constructed for each address,
and to pre-assign the corresponding PID value (e.g., selected to
optimise Receiver processing; to group related addresses to the same
PID value; and/or to reflect a policy for usage of specific ranges
of PID values). This presumes that the PID mappings are not modified
during transmission (section 4).
A single "well-known" PID is a specialisation of this. This scheme
is used by current DOCSIS cable modems [DOCSIS], where all IP
traffic is placed into the specified TS stream. MAC filtering
(and/or Section filtering in MPE) may be used to differentiate
subnetworks.
4.1.1 MPEG-2 Cable Networks
Cable networks use a different transmission scheme for downstream,
(head-end to cable modem) and upstream (cable modem to head-end)
transmission.
IP/Ethernet packets are sent (on the downstream) to the cable
modem(s) encapsulated in MPEG-2 TS Packets sent on a single well-
known TS Logical Channel (PID). There is no use of in-band
signalling tables. On the upstream, the common approach is to use
Ethernet framing, rather than IP/Ethernet over MPEG-2, although
other proprietary schemes also continue to be used.
Until the deployment of DOCSIS and EuroDOCSIS, most address
resolution schemes for IP traffic in cable networks were
proprietary, and did not usually employ a table-based address
resolution method. Proprietary methods continue to be used in some
cases where cable modems require interaction. In this case,
equipment at the head-end may act as gateways between the cable
modem and the Internet. These gateways receive L2 information and
allocate an IP address.
DOCSIS uses DHCP for IP client configuration. The Cable Modem
Terminal System (CMTS) provides a DHCP server that allocates IP
addresses to DOCSIS cable modems. The MPEG-2 Transmission Network
provides a L2 bridged network to the cable modem (section 1). This
usually acts as a DHCP Relay for IP devices [RFC2131], [RFC3046],
[RFC3256]. Issues in deployment of IPv6 are described in [RFC4779].
4.2 MPEG-2 Table-Based Address Resolution
The information about the set of MPEG-2 Transport Streams carried
over a TS Multiplex can be distributed via SI/PSI Tables. These
tables are usually sent periodically (section 4). This design
requires access to and processing of the SI Table information by
each Receiver [ETSI-SI], [ETSI-SI1]. This scheme reflects the
Expires September 2007 [page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
complexity of delivering and co-ordinating the various Transport
Streams associated with multimedia TV. A TS Multiplex may provide AR
information for IP services by integrating additional information
into the existing control tables or by transmitting additional SI
Tables that are specific to the IP service.
Examples of MPEG-2 Table usage to allow an MPEG-2 Receiver to
identify the appropriate PID and multiplex associated with a
specific IP address include:
(i) IP/MAC Notification Table (INT) in the DVB Data standard
[ETSI-DAT]. This provides uni-directional address resolution of
IPv4/IPv6 multicast addresses to an MPEG-2 TS.
(ii) Application Information Table (AIT) in the Multimedia Home
Platform (MHP) specifications [ETSI-MHP].
(iii) Multicast Mapping Table (MMT) an MPEG-2 Table employed by some
DVB-RCS systems to provide uni-directional address resolution
of IPv4 multicast addresses to an MPEG-2 TS.
The MMT and AIT are used for specific applications, whereas the INT
[ETSI-DAT] is a more general DVB method that supports MAC, IPv4, and
IPv6 AR when used in combination with the other MPEG-2 tables
(section 4).
4.2.1 IP/MAC Notification Table (INT) and its usage
The INT provides a set of descriptors to specify addressing in a DVB
network. Use of this method is specified for Multi-Protocol
Encapsulation (MPE) [ETSI-DAT]. It provides a method for carrying
information about the location of IP/L2 flows within a DVB network.
A Platform_ID, identifies the addressing scope for a set of IP/L2
streams and/or Receivers. A Platform may span several Transport
Streams carried by one or multiple TS Multiplexes and represents a
single IP network with a harmonized address space (scope). This
allows for the coexistence of several independent IP/MAC address
scopes within an MPEG-2 Network.
The INT allows both fully-specified IP addresses and prefix
matching, to reduce the size of the table (and hence enhance
signalling efficiency). An IPv4/IPv6 "subnet mask" may be specified
in full form or using a slash notation (e.g. /127). IP multicast
addresses can be specified with or without a source (address or
range), although if a source address is specified, then only the
slash notation may be used for prefixes.
In addition to identification and security descriptors, the
following descriptors are defined for address binding in INT tables:
(i) target_MAC_address_descriptor: A descriptor to describe a
single or set of MAC addresses (and their mask).
Expires September 2007 [page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
(ii) target_MAC_address_range_descriptor: A descriptor that may be
used to set filters.
(iii) target_IP_address_descriptor: A descriptor describing a
single or set of IPv4 unicast or multicast addresses (and
their mask).
(iv) target_IP_slash_descriptor: Allows definition and
announcement of an IPv4 prefix.
(v) target_IP_source_slash_descriptor: Uses source and
destination addresses to target a single or set of systems.
(vi) IP/MAC stream_location_descriptor: A descriptor that locates
an IP/MAC stream in a DVB network.
The following descriptors provide corresponding functions for IPv6
addresses:
target_IPv6_address_descriptor
target_IPv6_slash_descriptor
and target_IPv6_source_slash_descriptor
The ISP_access_mode_descriptor allows specification of a second
address descriptor to access an ISP via an alternative non-DVB
(possibly non-IP) network.
One key benefit is that the approach employs MPEG-2 signalling
(section 4) and is integrated with other signalling information.
This allows the INT to operate in the presence of (re)multiplexors
[RFC4259] and to refer to PID values that are carried in different
TS Multiplexes. This makes it well-suited to a Broadcast TV Scenario
[RFC4259].
The principal drawback is a need for an Encapsulator to introduce
associated PSI/SI MPEG-2 control information. This control
information needs to be processed at a Receiver. This requires
access to information below the IP layer. The position of this
processing within the protocol stack makes it hard to associate the
results with IP Policy, management and security functions. The use
of centralized management prevents the implementation of a more
dynamic scheme.
4.2.2 Multicast Mapping Table (MMT) and its usage
In DVB-RCS, unicast AR is seen as a part of a wider configuration
and control function and does not employ a specific protocol.
A Multicast Mapping Table (MMT) may be carried in an MPEG-2 control
table that associates a set of multicast addresses with the
corresponding PID values [MMT]. This table allows a DVB-RCS Forward
Expires September 2007 [page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
Link Subsystem (FLSS) to specify the mapping of IPv4 and IPv6
multicast addresses to PID values within a specific TS Multiplex.
Receivers (DVB-RCS Return Channel Satellite Terminals, RCSTs) may
use this table to determine the PID values associated with an IP
multicast flow that it requires to receive. The MMT is specified by
the SatLabs Forum [MMT], and is not currently a part of the DVB-RCS
specification.
4.2.3 Application Information Table (AIT) and its usage
The DVB Multimedia Home Platform (MHP) specification [ETSI-MHP] does
not define a specific AR function. However, an Application
Information Table (AIT) is defined that allows MHP Receivers to
receive a variety of control information. The AIT uses an MPEG-2
signalling table providing information about data broadcasts, the
required activation state of applications carried by a broadcast
stream, etc. This information allows a broadcaster to request that a
Receiver change the activation state of an application, and to
direct applications to receive specific multicast packet flows
(using IPv4 or IPv6 descriptors). In MHP, AR is not seen as a
specific function, but as a part of a wider configuration and
control function.
4.2.4 Address Resolution in ATSC
ATSC [ATSC-A54A] defines a system that allows transmission of IP
packets within an MPEG-2 Network. An MPEG-2 Program (defined by the
PMT) may contain one or more applications [ATSC-A90] that include IP
multicast streams [ATSC-A92]. IP multicast data are signalled in the
PMT using a stream_type indicator of value 0x0D. A MAC address list
descriptor [SCTE-1] may also be included in the PMT.
The approach focuses on applications that serve the transmission
network. A method is defined that uses MPEG-2 SI Tables to bind the
IP multicast media streams and the corresponding Session Description
Protocol (SDP) announcement streams to particular MPEG-2 Program
Elements. Each application constitutes an independent network. The
MPEG-2 Network boundaries establish the IP addressing scope.
4.2.5 Comparison of SI/PSI table approaches
The MPEG-2 methods based on SI/PSI meet the specified requirements
of the groups that created them and each has their strength: the
INT in terms of flexibility and extensibility, the MMT in its
simplicity, the AIT in its extensibility. However, they exhibit
scalability constraints, represent technology specific solutions and
do not fully adopt IP-centric approaches that would enable easier
use of the MPEG-2 bearer as a link technology within the wider
Internet.
Expires September 2007 [page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
4.3 IP-based address resolution for TS Logical Channels
As MPEG-2 Networks evolve to become multi-service networks, the use
of IP protocols is becoming more prevalent. Most MPEG-2 Networks now
use some IP protocols for operations, control and data delivery,
address resolution information could also be sent using IP
transport. At the time of writing there is no standards-based IP-
level AR protocol that supports the MPEG-2 TS.
There is an opportunity to define an IP-level method that could use
an IP multicast protocol over a well-known IP multicast address to
resolve an IP address to a TS Logical Channel (i.e., a Transport
Stream). The advantages of using an IP-based address resolution
include:
(i) Simplicity:
The AR mechanism does not require interpretation of L2 tables; this
is an advantage especially in the growing market share for home
network and audio video networked entities.
(ii) Uniformity:
An IP-based protocol can provide a common method across different
network scenarios for both IP to MAC address mappings and to map to
TS Logical Channels (PID value associated with a Stream).
(iii) Extensibility:
IP-based AR mechanisms allow an independent evolution of the AR
protocol. This includes dynamic methods to request address
resolution and the ability to include other L2 information (e.g.
Encryption keys).
(iv) Integration
The information exchanged by IP-based AR protocols can easily be
integrated as a part of the IP network layer, simplifying support
for AAA, policy, OAM, mobility, configuration control, etc. that
combine AR with security.
The drawbacks of an IP-based method include:
(i) It can not operate over an MPEG-2 Network that uses MPEG-2
remultiplexors [RFC4259] that modify the PID values associated with
the TS Logical Channels during the multiplexing operation (section
4). This makes the method unsuitable for use in deployed broadcast
TV networks [RFC4259].
(ii) IP-based methods can introduce concerns about the integrity of
the information and authentication of the sender [RFC4259]. (These
concerns are also applicable to MPEG-2 Table methods, but in this
case the information is confined to the L2 network, or parts of the
network where gateway devices isolate the MPEG-2 devices from the
larger Internet creating virtual MPEG-2 private networks.) IP-based
Expires September 2007 [page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
solutions should therefore implement security mechanisms that may be
used to authenticate the sender and verify the integrity of the AR
information, as a part of a larger security framework.
An IP-level method could use an IP multicast protocol running an AR
Server (see also section 5.4) over a well-known (or discovered) IP
multicast address. To satisfy the requirement for scalability to
networks with large number of systems (section 1), a single packet
needs to transport multiple AR records, and define the intended
scope for each address. Methods that employ prefix matching (e.g.
where a range of source/destination addresses are matched to a
single entry are desirable), as also are methods that allow a range
of IP addresses to mapped to a set of TS Logical Channels (a hashing
technique similar to the mapping of IP Group Destination Addresses
to Ethernet MAC addresses may be beneficial).
Expires September 2007 [page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
5. Mapping IP addresses to MAC/NPA addresses
This section reviews IETF protocols that may be used to assign and
manage the mapping of IP addresses to/from MAC/NPA addresses over
MPEG-2 Networks.
An IP Encapsulator requires AR information to select an appropriate
MAC/NPA address in the SNDU header [RFC4259] (section 6). The
information to complete this header may be taken directly from a
neighbour/arp cache, or may require the Encapsulator to retrieve the
information using an AR protocol. The way in which this information
is collected will depend upon whether the Encapsulator functions as
a Router (at L3) or a Bridge (at L2) (section 1.1).
Two IETF-defined protocols for mapping IP addresses to MAC/NPA
addresses are the Address Resolution Protocol, ARP [RFC826], and the
Neighbor Discovery protocol, ND [RFC2461], respectively for IPv4 and
IPv6. Both protocols are normally used in a bi-directional mode,
although both also permit unsolicited transmission of mappings. The
IPv6 mapping defined in [RFC2464] can result in a large number of
active MAC multicast addresses (e.g. one for each end host).
ARP requires support for L2 broadcast packets. A large number of
Receivers can lead to a proportional increase in ARP traffic, a
concern for bandwidth-limited networks. Transmission delay can also
impact protocol performance.
ARP also has a number of security vulnerabilities. ARP spoofing is
where a system can be fooled by a rogue device that sends a
fictitious ARP response that includes the IP address of a legitimate
network system, and the MAC of a rogue system. This causes
legitimate systems on the network to update their ARP tables with
the false mapping and then send future packets to the rogue system
instead of the legitimate system. Using this method, a rogue system
can see (and modify) packets sent through the network.
Secure ARP (SARP) uses a secure tunnel (e.g. between each client and
a server at a wireless access point or router) [RFC4346]. The router
ignores any ARP responses not associated with clients using the
secure tunnels. Therefore, only legitimate ARP Responses are used
for updating ARP tables. SARP requires the installation of software
at each client. It suffers from the same scalability issues as the
standard ARP.
The ND protocol uses a set of IP multicast addresses. In large
networks, many multicast addresses are used, but each client
typically only listens to a restricted set of group destination
addresses and little traffic is usually sent in each group. Layer-2
AR for MPEG-2 Networks therefore must support this in a scalable
manner.
Expires September 2007 [page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
A large number of ND messages may cause a large demand for
performing asymmetric operations. The base ND protocol limits the
rate at which multicast responses to solicitations can be sent,
configurations may need to be tuned when operating with large
numbers of Receivers.
The default parameters specified in the ND protocol [RFC2461] can
introduce interoperability problems (e.g. a failure to resolve when
the link RTT exceed 3 seconds) and performance degradation
(duplicate ND messages with a link RTT > 1 second) when used in
networks where the link RTT is significantly larger than experienced
by Ethernet LANs. Tuning of the protocol parameters (e.g.
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL) is therefore recommended when using
network links with appreciable delay (section 6.3.2 of [RFC2461]).
ND has similar security vulnerabilities to ARP. The Secure Neighbor
Discovery, SEND [RFC3971] was developed to address known security
vulnerabilities in ND [RFC3756]. It can also reduce the AR traffic
compared to ND. In addition, SEND does not require the configuration
of per-host keys and can co-exist with the use of both SEND and
insecure ND on the same link.
The ND Protocol is also used by IPv6 systems to perform other
functions beyond address resolution, including Router Solicitation /
Advertisement, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), Neighbor
Unreachability Detection (NUD), Redirect. These functions are useful
for hosts, even when address resolution is not required.
5.1 Uni-directional links supporting uni-directional connectivity
MPEG-2 Networks may provide a Uni-Directional broadcast Link (UDL),
with no return path. Such links may be used for unicast applications
that do not require a return path (e.g. based on UDP), but commonly
are used for IP multicast content distribution.
/-----\
MPEG-2 Uplink /MPEG-2 \
###################( Network )
# \ /
+----#------+ \--.--/
| Network | |
| Provider + v MPEG-2 downlink
+-----------+ |
+-----v------+
| MPEG-2 |
| Receiver |
+------------+
Figure 3: Uni-directional connectivity
Expires September 2007 [page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
The ARP and ND protocols require bi-directional L2/L3 connectivity.
They do not provide an appropriate method to resolve the remote
(destination) address in a uni-directional environment.
Unidirectional links therefore require a separate out-of-band
configuration method to establish the appropriate AR information at
the Encapsulator and Receivers. ULE [RFC4326] defines a mode in
which the MAC/NPA address is omitted from the SNDU. In some
scenarios, this may relieve an Encapsulator of the need for L2 AR.
5.2 Uni-directional links with bi-directional connectivity
Bi-directional connectivity may be realised using a uni-directional
link in combination with another network path. Common combinations
are a Feed link using MPEG-2 satellite transmission and a return
link using terrestrial network infrastructure. This topology is
often known as a Hybrid network, and has asymmetric network routing.
/-----\
MPEG-2 uplink /MPEG-2 \
###################( Network )
# \ /
+----#------+ \--.--/
| Network | |
| Provider +-<-+ v MPEG-2 downlink
+-----------+ | |
| +-----v------+
+--<<--+ MPEG-2 |
Return | Receiver |
Path +------------+
Figure 4: Bi-directional connectivity
The Uni-Directional Link Routing, UDLR [RFC3077] protocol may be
used to overcome issues associated with asymmetric routing. The
Dynamic Tunnel Configuration Protocol (DTCP) enables automatic
configuration of the return path. UDLR hides the uni-directional
routing from the IP and upper layer protocols, by providing a L2
tunnelling mechanism that emulates a bi-directional broadcast link
at L2. A network using UDLR has a topology where a Feed Router and
all Receivers form a logical Local Area Network. Encapsulating L2
frames allows them to be sent through an Internet Path (i.e.
bridging).
Since many uni-directional links employ wireless technology for the
forward (Feed) link, there may be an appreciable cost associated
with forwarding traffic on the Feed link. Therefore, it is often
desirable to prevent forwarding unnecessary traffic, (e.g. for
multicast this implies control of which groups are forwarded). The
implications of forwarding in the return direction must also be
considered (e.g., asymmetric capacity and loss [RFC3449]). This
Expires September 2007 [page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
suggests a need to minimise the volume and frequency of control
messages.
Three different AR cases may be identified (each considers sending
an IP packet to a next-hop IP address that is not currently cached
by the sender):
(i) A Feed Router needs a Receiver MAC/NPA address.
This occurs when a Feed Router sends an IP packet using the Feed UDL
to a Receiver whose MAC/NPA address is unknown. In IPv4, the Feed
Router sends an ARP REQUEST with the IP address of the Receiver. The
Receiver that recognises its IP address replies with an ARP RESPONSE
to the MAC/NPA address of the Feed Router (e.g. using a UDLR
tunnel). The Feed Router may then address IP packets to the unicast
MAC/NPA address associated with the Receiver. The ULE packet format
also permits packets to be sent without specifying a MAC/NPA
address, where this is desirable (section 6.1, 6.5).
(ii) A Receiver needs the Feed Router MAC/NPA address.
This occurs when a Receiver sends an IP packet to a Feed Router
whose MAC/NPA address is unknown. In IPv4, the Receiver sends an ARP
REQUEST with the IP address of the Feed Router (e.g. using a UDLR
tunnel). The Feed Router replies with an ARP RESPONSE using the Feed
UDL. The Receiver may then address IP packets to the MAC/NPA address
of the recipient.
(iii) A Receiver needs another Receiver MAC/NPA address.
This occurs when a Receiver sends an IP packet to another Receiver
whose MAC/NPA address is unknown. In IPv4, the Receiver sends an ARP
REQUEST with the IP address of the remote Receiver (e.g. using a
UDLR tunnel to the Feed Router). The request is forwarded over the
Feed UDL. The target Receiver replies with an ARP RESPONSE (e.g.
using a UDLR tunnel). The Feed Router forwards the response on the
UDL. The Receiver may then address IP packets to the MAC/NPA address
of the recipient.
These 3 cases allow any system connected to the UDL to obtain the
MAC/NPA address of any other system. Similar exchanges may be
performed using the ND protocol for IPv6.
A long round trip delay (via the UDL and UDLR tunnel) impacts the
performance of the reactive address resolution procedures provided
by ARP, ND and SEND. In contrast to Ethernet, during the interval
when resolution is taking place, many IP packets may be received
that are addressed to the AR Target address. The arp specification
allows an interface to discard these packets while awaiting the
response to the resolution request. An appropriately sized buffer
would however prevent this loss.
Expires September 2007 [page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
In case (iii), the time to complete address resolution may be
reduced by use of an AR Server at the Feed (section 5.4).
Using DHCP requires prior establishment of the L2 connectivity to a
DHCP server. The delay in establishing return connectivity in UDLR
networks that use DHCP, may make it beneficial to increase the
frequency of the DTCP HELLO message. Further information about
tuning DHCP is provided in section 5.5.
5.3 Bi-directional Links
Bi-directional IP networks can be and are constructed by a
combination of two MPEG-2 transmission links. One link is usually a
broadcast link that feeds a set of remote Receivers. Links are also
provided from Receivers so that the combined link functions as a
full duplex interface. Examples of this use include two-way DVB-S
satellite links and the DVB-RCS system.
5.4 AR Server
An AR Server can be used to distribute AR information to Receivers
in an MPEG-2 Network. In some topologies this may significantly
reduce the time taken for Receivers to discover AR information.
The AR Server can operate as a proxy responding on behalf of
Receivers to received AR requests. When an IPv4 AR request is
received (e.g. Receiver ARP REQUEST), an AR Server responds by
(proxy) sending an AR response providing the appropriate IP to
MAC/NPA binding (mapping the IP address to the L2 address).
Information may also be sent unsolicited by the AR Server using
multicast/broadcast to update the arp/neighbor cache at the
Receivers without the need for explicit requests. The unsolicited
method can improve scaling in large networks. Scaling could be
further improved by distributing a single broadcast/multicast AR
message that binds multiple IP and MAC/NPA addresses. This reduces
the network capacity consumed and simplifies client
processing/server in networks with large numbers of clients.
An AR Server can be implemented using IETF-defined Protocols by
configuring the subnetwork so that AR Requests from Receivers are
intercepted rather than forwarded to the Feed/broadcast link. The
intercepted messages are sent to an AR Server. The AR Server
maintains a set of MAC/NPA address bindings. These may be configured
or may learned by monitoring ARP messages sent by Receivers.
Currently defined IETF protocols only allow one binding per message,
(i.e. there is no optimisation to conserve L2 bandwidth).
Equivalent methods could provide IPv6 AR. Procedures for
intercepting ND messages are defined in [RFC4389]. To perform an AR
Server function, the AR information must also be cached. A caching
Expires September 2007 [page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
AR proxy stores system state within a middle-box device. This
resembles a classic man-in-the-middle security attack; interactions
with SEND are described in [ID-SP-ND].
Methods are needed to purge stale AR data from the cache. The
consistency of the cache must also be considered when the receiver
bindings can change (e.g. IP mobility, network topology changes, or
intermittent Receiver connectivity). In these cases, the use of old
(stale) information can result in IP packets being directed to an
inappropriate L2 address, with consequent packet loss.
Current IETF-defined methods provide bindings of IP addresses to
MAC/NPA, but do not allow the bindings to other L2 information
pertinent to MPEG-2 Networks, requiring the use of other methods for
this function (section 4). AR Servers can also be implemented using
non-IETF AR protocols to provide the AR information required by
Receivers.
5.5 DHCP Tuning
DHCP [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315] may be used over MPEG-2
Networks. DHCP consists of two components: a protocol for delivering
system-specific configuration parameters from a DHCP server to a
DHCP client (e.g. default router, DNS server) and a mechanism for
allocation of network addresses to systems.
The configuration of DHCP Servers and Clients should take into
account the local link round trip delay (possibly including the
additional delay from bridging, e.g. using UDLR). A large number of
clients can make it desirable to tune the DHCP lease duration and
the size of the address pool. Appropriate timer values should also
be selected: the DHCP messages retransmission timeout, and the
maximum delay that a DHCP Server waits before deciding that the
absence of an ICMP echo response indicates that the relevant address
is free.
DHCP Clients may retransmit DHCP messages if they do not receive a
response. Some client implementations specify a timeout for the
DHCPDISCOVER message that is small (e.g. suited to Ethernet delay,
rather than appropriate to a MPEG-2 Network) providing insufficient
time for a DHCP Server to respond to a DHCPDISCOVER retransmission
before expiry of the check on the lease availability (by an ICMP
Echo Request), resulting in potential address conflict. This value
may need to be tuned for MPEG-2 networks.
5.6 IP Multicast AR
Section 3.2 describes multicast address resolution requirements.
This section describes L3 address bindings when the destination
network layer address is an IP multicast Group Destination Address.
Expires September 2007 [page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
In MPE [ETSI-DAT], a mapping is specified for the MAC Address based
on the IP multicast address for IPv4 [RFC1112] and IPv6 [RFC2464].
(A variant of DVB (DVB-H) uses a modified MAC header [ETSI-DAT]).
In ULE [RFC4326], the L2 NPA address is optional, and is not
necessarily required when the Receiver is able to perform efficient
L3 multicast address filtering. When present, a mapping is defined
based on the IP multicast address for IPv4 [RFC1112] and IPv6
[RFC2464].
The L2 group addressing method specified in [RFC1112] and [RFC2464]
can result in more than one IP destination addresses mapping to the
same L2 address. In Source-Specific Multicast, SSM [RFC3569],
multicast groups are identified by the combination of the IP source
and IP destination addresses. Senders may therefore independently
select an IP group destination address that could map to the same L2
address if forwarded onto the same L2 link. The resulting addressing
overlap at L2 can increase the volume of traffic forwarded to L3,
where it then needs to be filtered.
These considerations are the same as for Ethernet LANs, and may not
be of concern to Receivers that can perform efficient L3 filtering.
Section 3 noted that a MPEG-2 Network may need to support multiple
addressing scopes at the network and link layers. Separation of the
different groups into different Transport Streams is one remedy
(with signalling of IP to PID value mappings). Another approach is
to employ alternate MAC/NPA mappings to those defined in [RFC1112]
and [RFC2464], but such mappings need to be consistently bound at
the Encapsulator and Receiver using AR procedures in a scalable
manner.
5.6.1 Multicast/Broadcast addressing for UDLR
UDLR is a layer 2 solution, in which a Receiver may send
multicast/broadcast frames that are subsequently forwarded natively
by a Feed Router (using the topology in figure 2), and are finally
received at the feed interface of the originating Receiver. This
multicast forwarding does not include the normal L3 Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) check or L2 spanning tree checks, the processing of
the IP Time To Live (TTL) field, or the filtering of
administratively scoped multicast addresses. This raises a need to
carefully consider multicast support. To avoid forwarding loops,
RFC3077 notes that a Receiver needs to be configured with
appropriate filter rules to ensure it discards packets that
originate from an attached network and are later received over the
feed link.
When the encapsulation includes an MAC/NPA source address, re-
broadcast packets may be filtered at the link-layer using a filter
that discards L2 addresses that are local to the Receiver. In some
circumstances, systems can send packets with an unknown (all zero)
MAC source address (e.g. IGMP Proxy Queriers [RFC4605]), where the
Expires September 2007 [page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
source at L2 can not be determined at the Receiver, these packets
need to be silently discarded, which may prevent running the
associated services on the Receiver.
Some encapsulation formats also do not include an MAC/NPA source
address (Table 2). Multicast packets may therefore alternatively be
discarded at the IP layer if their IP source address matches a local
IP address (or address range). Systems can send packets with an all
zero IP source address (e.g. BOOTP [RFC951], DHCP [RFC2131] and ND
[RFC2461]), where the source at L3 can not be determined at the
Receiver these packets need to be silently discarded. This may
prevent running the associated services at a Receiver, e.g.
participation in IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection, or running a DHCP
server.
Expires September 2007 [page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
6. Link Layer Support
This section considers link-layer (L2) support for address
resolution in MPEG-2 Networks. It considers two issues: The code-
point used at L2 and the efficiency of encapsulation for
transmission required to support the AR method. The table below
summarises the options for both MPE ([ETSI-DAT],[ATSC-A90]) and ULE
[RFC4326] encapsulations.
[ID-IAB-LINK] describes issues and concerns that may arise when a
link can support multiple encapsulations. In particular, it
identifies problems that arise when end hosts that belong to the
same IP network employ different incompatible encapsulation methods.
An Encapsulator must therefore use only one method e.g. ULE or MPE)
to support a single IP network (i.e. set of IPv4 systems sharing the
same subnet broadcast address, or same IPv6 Prefix). In this way,
all Receivers belonging to a network will Receive the same set of
multicast/broadcast messages.
In ULE, the bridging format may be used in combination with the
normal mode to address packets to a Receiver (all ULE Receivers are
required to implement both methods). Frames carrying IP packets
using the ULE Bridging mode that have a destination address
corresponding to the MAC address of the Receiver and have an IP
address corresponding to a Receiver interface will be delivered to
the IP stack of the Receiver. All bridged IP multicast and broadcast
frames will also be copied to the IP stack of the Receiver.
Receivers must filter (discard) a frame that carries a MAC source
address of a system that is reachable via a different network
interface to that upon which it is received, including reception of
a frame with an address that matches the source address of the
Receiver itself [802.1D].
+-------------------------------+--------+----------------------+
| | PDU |L2 Frame Header Fields|
| L2 Encapsulation |overhead+----------------------+
| |[bytes] |src mac|dst mac| type |
+-------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+
|6.1 ULE without dst MAC address| 8 | - | - | x |
|6.2 ULE with dst MAC address | 14 | - | x | x |
|6.3 MPE without LLC/SNAP | 16 | - | x | - |
|6.4 MPE with LLC/SNAP | 24 | - | x | x |
|6.5 ULE with Bridging extension| 22 | x | x | x |
|6.6 ULE with Bridging & NPA | 28 | x | x | x |
|6.7 MPE+LLC/SNAP+Bridging | 38 | x | x | x |
+-------------------------------+--------+-------+-------+------+
Table showing L2 support and overhead (x=supported, -=not supported)
The remainder of the section describes IETF-specified AR methods for
use with these encapsulation formats. Most of these methods rely on
Expires September 2007 [page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
bi-directional communications (see section 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 for a
discussion of this).
6.1 ULE without a destination MAC/NPA address (D=1)
The ULE encapsulation supports a mode (D=1) where the MAC/NPA
address is not present in the encapsulated frame. This mode may be
used with both IPv4 and IPv6. When used, the Receiver is expected
to perform L3 filtering of packets based on their IP destination
address [RFC4326]. This requires careful consideration of the
network topology when a receiver is an IP router, or delivers data
to an IP router (a simple case where this is permitted arises in the
connection of stub networks at a Receiver that have no connectivity
to other networks). Since there is no MAC/NPA address in the SNDU,
ARP and the ND protocol are not required for AR.
IPv6 systems can automatically configure their IPv6 network address
based upon a local MAC address [RFC2462]. To use auto-configuration,
the IP driver at the Receiver may need to access the MAC/NPA address
of the receiving interface, even though this value is not being used
to filter received SNDUs.
Even when not used for AR, the ND protocol may still be required to
support DAD, and other IPv6 network-layer functions. This protocol
uses a block of IPv6 multicast addresses, which need to be carried
by the L2 network. However, since this encapsulation format does not
provide a MAC source address, there are topologies (e.g., section
5.6.1) where a system can not differentiate DAD packets that were
originally sent by itself and were re-broadcast, from those that may
have been sent by another system with the same L3 address. DAD
therefore can not be used with this encapsulation format in
topologies where this L2 forwarding may occur.
6.2 ULE with a destination MAC/NPA address (D=0)
The IPv4 Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC826] is identified by
an IEEE EtherType and may be used over ULE [RFC4326]. Although no
MAC source address is present in the ULE SNDU, the ARP protocol
still communicates the source MAC (hardware) address in the ARP
record payload of any query messages that it generates.
The IPv6 ND protocol is supported. The protocol uses a block of IPv6
multicast addresses, which need to be carried by the L2 network. The
protocol uses a block of IPv6 multicast addresses, which need to be
carried by the L2 network. However, since this encapsulation format
does not provide a MAC source address, there are topologies (e.g.,
section 5.6.1) where a system can not differentiate DAD packets that
were originally sent by itself and were re-broadcast, from those
that may have been sent by another system with the same L3 address.
DAD therefore can not be used with this encapsulation format in
topologies where this L2 forwarding may occur.
Expires September 2007 [page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
6.3 MPE without LLC/SNAP Encapsulation
This is the default (and sometimes only) mode specified by most MPE
Encapsulators. MPE does not provide an EtherType field and therefore
can not support the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC826].
IPv6 is not supported in this encapsulation format, and therefore it
is not appropriate to consider the ND protocol.
6.4 MPE with LLC/SNAP Encapsulation
The LLC/SNAP format of MPE provides an EtherType field and therefore
may support the ARP [RFC826]. There is no specification to define
how this is performed. No MAC source address is present in the SNDU,
although the protocol still communicates the source MAC address in
the ARP record payload of any query messages that it generates.
The IPv6 ND protocol is supported using The LLC/SNAP format of MPE.
This requires specific multicast addresses to be carried by the L2
network. The IPv6 ND protocol is supported. The protocol uses a
block of IPv6 multicast addresses, which need to be carried by the
L2 network. However, since this encapsulation format does not
provide a MAC source address, there are topologies (e.g., section
5.6.1) where a system can not differentiate DAD packets that were
originally sent by itself and were re-broadcast, from those that may
have been sent by another system with the same L3 address, DAD
therefore can not be used with this encapsulation format in
topologies where this L2 forwarding may occur.
6.5 ULE with Bridging Header Extension (D=1)
The ULE encapsulation supports a bridging extension header that
supplies both a source and destination MAC address. This can be
used without an NPA address (D=1). When no other Extension Headers
precede this Extension, the MAC destination address has the same
position in the ULE SNDU as that used for an NPA destination
address. The Receiver may optionally be configured so that the MAC
destination address value is identical to a Receiver NPA address.
At the Encapsulator, the ULE MAC/NPA destination address is
determined by a L2 forwarding decision. Received frames may be
forwarded or may be addressed to the Receiver itself. As in other L2
LANs, the Receiver may choose to filter received frames based on a
configured MAC destination address filter. ARP and ND messages may
be carried within a PDU that is bridged by this encapsulation
format. Where the topology may result in subsequent reception of re-
broadcast copies of multicast frames that were originally sent by a
Receiver (e,g. section 5.6.1), the system must discard frames that
are received with a source address that it used in frames sent from
the same interface [802.1D]. This prevents duplication on the
bridged network (e.g. this would otherwise invoke DAD).
Expires September 2007 [page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
6.6 ULE with Bridging Header Extension and NPA Address (D=0)
The combination of a NPA address (D=0) and a bridging extension
header are allowed in ULE. This SNDU format supplies both a source
and destination MAC address and a NPA destination address (i.e.
Receiver MAC/NPA address).
At the Encapsulator, the value of the ULE MAC/NPA destination
address is determined by a L2 forwarding decision. At the Receiver,
frames may be forwarded or may be addressed to the Receiver itself.
As in other L2 LANs, the Receiver may choose to filter received
frames based on a configured MAC destination address filter. ARP and
ND messages may be carried within a PDU that is bridged by this
encapsulation format. Where the topology may result in subsequent
reception of re-broadcast copies of multicast frames that were
originally sent by a Receiver (e,g. section 5.6.1), the system must
discard frames that are received with a source address that it used
in frames sent from the same interface [802.1D]. This prevents
duplication on the bridged network (e.g., this would otherwise
invoke DAD).
6.7 MPE+LLC/SNAP+Bridging
The LLC/SNAP format MPE frames may optionally support an IEEE
bridging header [LLC]. This header supplies both a source and
destination MAC address, at the expense of larger encapsulation
overhead. The format defines two MAC destination addresses, one
associated with the MPE SNDU (i.e. Receiver MAC address) and one
with the bridged MAC frame (i.e. the MAC address of the intended
recipient in the remote LAN).
At the Encapsulator, the MPE MAC destination address is determined
by a L2 forwarding decision. There is currently no formal
description of the Receiver processing for this encapsulation
format. A Receiver may forward frames or they may be addressed to
the Receiver itself. As in other L2 LANs, the Receiver may choose to
filter received frames based on a configured MAC destination address
filter. ARP and ND messages may be carried within a PDU that is
bridged by this encapsulation format. The MPE MAC destination
address is determined by a L2 forwarding decision. Where the
topology may result in subsequent reception of re-broadcast copies
of multicast frames that were originally sent by a Receiver (e,g.
section 5.6.1), the system must discard frames that are received
with a source address that it used in frames sent from the same
interface [802.1D]. This prevents duplication on the bridged network
(e.g. this would otherwise invoke DAD).
Expires September 2007 [page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
7. Conclusions
This document describes addressing and address resolution issues for
IP protocols over MPEG-2 transmission networks using both wired and
wireless technologies. A number of specific IETF protocols are
discussed along with their expected behaviour over MPEG-2
transmission networks. Recommendations for their usage are provided.
There is no single common approach used in all MPEG-2 networks. A
static binding may be configured for IP addresses and PIDs (as in
some cable networks). In broadcast networks, this information is
normally provided by the Encapsulator/Multiplexor and carried in
signalling tables (e.g. AIT in MHP, the IP Notification Table, INT,
of DVB and the DVB-RCS Multicast Mapping Table, MMT). This document
has reviewed the status of these current address resolution
mechanisms in MPEG-2 transmission networks and defined their usage.
The document also considers a unified IP-based method for AR that
could be independent of the physical layer, but does not define a
new protocol. It examines the design criteria for a method, with
recommendations to ensure scalability and improve support for the IP
protocol stack.
8. Security Considerations
The normal security issues relating to the use of wireless links for
transmission of Internet traffic should be considered.
L2 signalling in MPEG-2 transmission networks is currently provided
by (periodic) broadcasting of information in the control plane using
PSI/SI tables (section 4). A loss or modification of the SI
information may result in an inability to identify the TS Logical
Channel (PID) that is used for a service. This will prevent
reception of the intended IP packet stream.
There are known security issues relating to the use of unsecured
address resolution [RFC3756]. Readers are also referred to the
known security issues when mapping IP addresses to MAC/NPA addresses
using ARP [RFC826] and ND [RFC2461]. It is recommended that AR
protocols support authentication of the source of AR messages and
the integrity of the AR information, this avoids known security
vulnerabilities resulting from insertion of unauthorised AR messages
within a L2 infrastructure. For IPv6, the SEND protocol [RFC3971]
may be used in place of ND. This defines security mechanisms that
can protect AR.
AR protocols can also be protected by the use of L2 security methods
(e.g. Encryption of the ULE SNDU [ID-IPDVB-SEC]). When these methods
are used, the security of ARP and ND can be comparable to that of a
private LAN: A Receiver will only accept ARP or ND transmissions
from the set of peer senders that share a common group encryption
Expires September 2007 [page 33]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
and common group authentication key provided by the L2 key
management.
AR Servers (section 5.4) are susceptible to the same kind of
security issues as end hosts using unsecured AR. These issues
include hijacking traffic and denial-of-service within the subnet.
Malicious nodes within the subnet can take advantage of this
property, and hijack traffic. In addition, an AR Server is
essentially a legitimate man-in-the-middle, which implies that there
is a need to distinguish such proxies from unwanted man-in-the-
middle attackers. This document does not introduce any new
mechanisms for the protection of these AR functions (e.g.
authenticating servers, or defining AR Servers that interoperate
with the SEND protocol [ID-SP-ND]).
9. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the ipdvb WG members for their inputs and
in particular, Rod Walsh, Jun Takei, and Michael Mercurio. The
authors also acknowledge the support of the European Space Agency.
Martin Stiemerling contributed descriptions of scenarios,
configuration, and provided extensive proof reading. Hidetaka
Izumiyama contributed on UDLR and IPv6 issues. A number of issues
discussed in the UDLR working group have also provided valuable
inputs to this document (summarised in draft-ietf-udlr-experiments-
01.txt).
Expires September 2007 [page 34]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[ETSI-DAT] EN 301 192, "Specifications for Data Broadcasting",
v1.3.1, European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), May
2003.
[ETSI-MHP] TS 101 812, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Multimedia
Home Platform (MHP) Specification", v1.2.1, European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), June 2002.
[ETSI-SI] EN 300 468, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
Specification for Service Information (SI) in DVB systems", v1.7.1,
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), December
2005.
[ISO-MPEG2] ISO/IEC IS 13818-1, "Information technology -- Generic
coding of moving pictures and associated audio information -- Part
1: Systems", International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2000.
[RFC826] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol", RFC
826, IETF, November 1982.
[RFC1112] Deering, S.E., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC1112, (STD05), August 1989.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6), RFC 2461, December 1998.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
2131, March 1997.
[RFC3077] Duros, E., Dabbous, W., Izumiyama, H., Fujii, N., and Y.
Zhang, "A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional Links",
RFC 3077, March 2001.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[RFC4326] Fairhurst, G., Collini-Nocker, B., "Unidirectional
Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) for transmission of IP datagrams
over an MPEG-2 Transport Stream", RFC 4326, December 2005.
10.2 Informative References
Expires September 2007 [page 35]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
[ATSC] A/53C, "ATSC Digital Television Standard", Advanced
Television Systems Committee (ATSC), Doc. A/53C, 2004.
[ATSC-A54A] A/54A, "Guide to the use of the ATSC Digital Television
Standard", Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), Doc. A/54A,
2003.
[ATSC-A90] A/90, "ATSC Data Broadcast Standard", Advanced Television
Systems Committee (ATSC), Doc. A/90, 2000.
[ATSC-A92] A/92, "Delivery of IP Multicast Sessions over ATSC Data
Broadcast", Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), Doc. A/92,
2002.
[DOCSIS] "Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications, DOCSIS
2.0, Radio Frequency Interface Specification", CableLabs, document
CM-SP-RFIv2.0-I10-051209, 2005.
[DVB] Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) Project. http://www.dvb.org
[ETSI-SI1] TR 101 162, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Allocation
of Service Information (SI) codes for DVB systems", European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
[ETSI-RCS] EN 301 790, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
Interaction channel for satellite distribution Systems", European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
[ISO-DSMCC] ISO/IEC IS 13818-6, "Information technology -- Generic
coding of moving pictures and associated audio information -- Part
6: Extensions for DSM-CC is a full software implementation",
International Standards Organisation (ISO), 2002.
[ID-IPDVB-SEC] H.Cruickshank, S. Iyengar, L. Duquerroy, P. Pillai,
"Security requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight
Encapsulation (ULE) protocol", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ipdvb-
sec-req-xx.txt.
[ID-IAB-LINK] Aboba, B., Davies, E., Thaler, D., "Multiple
Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful"", Work in Progress, draft-
iab-link-encaps-08.txt.
[ID-SP-ND] Daley, G., "Securing Proxy Neighbour Discovery Problem
Statement", Work in progress, draft-daley-send-spnd-prob-01.txt,
February 2005.
[802.1D] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", IEEE, 204.
[LLC] ISO/IEC 8802.2, "Information technology; Telecommunications
and information exchange between systems; Local and metropolitan
Expires September 2007 [page 36]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
area networks; Specific requirements; Part 2: Logical Link Control",
International Standards Organisation (ISO), 1998.
[MMT] "SatLabs System Recommendations, Part 1, General
Specifications", Version 2.0, SatLabs Forum, 2006.
http://satlabs.org/pdf/SatLabs_System_Recommendations_v2.0_general.p
df
[RFC951] Croft, W. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951,
September 1985.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
2131, March 1997.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
RFC 2365, July 1998.
[RFC2375] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address
Assignments", RFC 2375, July 1998.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC
3046, January 2001.
[RFC3256] Jones, D. and R. Woundy, "The DOCSIS (Data-Over-Cable
Service Interface Specifications) Device Class DHCP (Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol) Relay Agent Information Sub-option", RFC
3256, April 2002.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC
3376, October 2002.
[RFC3449] Balakrishnan, H., Padmanabhan, V., Fairhurst, G., and M.
Sooriyabandara, "TCP Performance Implications of Network Path
Asymmetry", BCP 69, RFC 3449, December 2002.
[RFC3451] Luby, M., Gemmell, J., Vicisano, L., Rizzo, L., Handley,
M., and J. Crowcroft, "Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building
Block", RFC 3451, December 2002.
[RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.
[RFC3756] Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004.
[RFC3738] Luby, M. and V. Goyal, "Wave and Equation Based Rate
Control (WEBRC) Building Block", RFC 3738, April 2004.
Expires September 2007 [page 37]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L. Wood,
"Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89, RFC 3819, July
2004.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC4259] Montpetit, M.J., Fairhurst, G., Clausen, H.D., Collini-
Nocker, B., and H. Linder, "Architecture for IP transport
over MPEG-2 Networks".
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4605] B Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")",
RFC 4605, August 2006.
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access
Networks", RFC 4779, January 2007.
[SCTE-1] "IP Multicast for Digital MPEG Networks", SCTE DVS 311r6,
March 2002.
11. Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst
Department of Engineering
University of Aberdeen
Aberdeen, AB24 3UE
UK
gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry
Marie-Jose Montpetit
Motorola Connected Home Solutions
Advanced Technology
55 Hayden Avenue , 3rd Floor
Expires September 2007 [page 38]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
Lexington
Massachusetts
02421
USA
mmontpetit@motorola.com
12. IPR Notices
12.1 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
12.2 Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
13. Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Expires September 2007 [page 39]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
14. IANA Considerations
This document does not define a protocol or protocol extension. No
action is required by the IANA.
Expires September 2007 [page 40]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
>>> NOTE to RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix prior to
publication]
Document History
-00 This draft is intended as a study item for proposed future
work by the IETF in this area.
-01 Review of initial content, major edit and refinement of
concepts
-02 fairly important review; took out all new protocol reference;
added one author; added contribution on real implementation
-02 Added content to respond to 61st IETF comments;
refined ID goals; rewrote section 4.2 and 4.3; added cable
information.
-03 Major reorganise to align with Charter, and clearly identify
IP issues.
-04 restructured the draft (major rewrite) and added discussion of
arp and ND related to specific cases for use.
WG -00
Reformatted as WG Draft.
Added inputs from UDLR working group on UDLR, DHCP, etc.
WG-01
This rev. included a number of changes:
* Added the case for large no. of groups/dynamic join to 3.2
* ISO MPEG-2 table requirements added to section 4, following
discussion on the list.
* Added AR Authentication note to security considerations.
WG-02
* Major editorial work to bring this up tro DRAFT RFC format
* Removed duplication of scoping discussion with ipdvb-arch
* Reworded UDLR section to separate protocol issues from UDLR
specifics.
* Added SI security discussion.
* Minor corrections
* Added text from A/92 on scoping.
* Aligned definitions with ipdvb-arch.
* Fixed Reference format
* Removed markers for additional contributions
* No contributions received on PPPoE (removed).
WG-03
* Sections restructured to offer clearer advice on IETF-defined
protocols.
* Section added on bridging v routing cases
* Section added on AR Server and use with arp and ND.
* Section added to collect issues relating to DHCP
* English improved to prepare for WGLC.
Expires September 2007 [page 41]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
WG-04
* Fixed spelling mistake noted by George Kinal
* Comments on various issues received from Rupert Goodrings
* Comments on various issues received from Martin Striemerling
* Comments on DAD and UDLR from Tina Strauf
* Comments on DAD and MAC addresses from Bernhard Collini-Nocker
* English fixed.
* Title change (inserted methods)
WG-05 (following WGLC)
* Fixed security issues noted by George Gross
* Added text on Mobility, topology changes with AR cache.
* To be consistent with RFC4326, NPA = ULA address indicated by the
D-bit, whereas MAC means IEEE-style address. I've reworked the text
to make this clearer. Also made all "NPA/MAC" into "MAC/NPA".
* Added notes on AR caches when used in mobile/ST topology changes.
* Also note a mistake to section (iii) which was confusing about L2
multicast addresses, this now reads:
" (iii) IP and other protocols may view sets of L3 multicast
addresses as link-local. This may produce unexpected results
if frames with the corresponding multicast L2 addresses are
distributed to systems in a different L3 network or
multicast scope (see sections 3.2 and 5.6)"
* Section 2, Added:
MAC Address: A 6 byte link layer address of the format described by
the Ethernet IEEE 802 standard (see also NPA).
* Section 3, Revised bullet into two points:
A scalable architecture that may support large numbers of systems
within the MPEG-2 network [RFC4259].
A method for transmission of AR information from an AR Server to
clients that minimise the transmission cost (link local multicast,
is preferable to subnet broadcast).
* Section 3, changed *context* to *scope*
* Section 4.3. Revised wording on T Stream v. TS Logical Channel.
* Section 5.4. 2nd para, added *(mapping the IP address to the L2
address)*
* Added:
The default parameters specified in RFC 2461 for the ND protocol can
introduce interoperability problems (e.g. a failure to resolve when
the link RTT exceed 3 seconds) and performance degradation
(duplicate ND messages with a link RTT > 1 second) when used in
networks were the link RTT is significantly larger than experienced
by Ethernet LANs. Tuning of the protocol parameters (e.g.
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL) is therefore recommended when using
Expires September 2007 [page 42]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
Network links with appreciable delay (Section 6.3.2 of [RFC2461]).
WG-06 (following IESG Discuss)
1) Added text on draft-iab-link-encaps-05, indicating ULE or MPE
must be solely used and highlighting interoperability implications
of this situation.
-------------------------------------------------------
2) Methods also exist to assign IP addresses to Receivers within a
network (e.g. DHCP [RFC2131], DHC [RFC3736]).
- Replaced by stateless autoconfiguration [RFC2461], DHCP [RFC2131],
DHCPv6 [RFC3315], stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736].
-------------------------------------------------------
3) A method to represent IPv4/IPv6 AR information (including
security associations to authenticate the AR information that will
prevent address masquerading [RFC3756]).
s/associations/mechanisms/.
-------------------------------------------------------
4) Re-wording to avoid the ambiguity in the text:
The goal of this multicast address resolution is to allow a
Receiver to associate an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast address with
a specific TS Logical Channel and the corresponding TS Multiplex.
-------------------------------------------------------
5) Re-wording
SEND does not require the configuration of per-host keys and can co-
exist with the use of both SEND and insecure ND on the same link.
-------------------------------------------------------
6) Updated sections that describe DAD issues to be clearer that this
arises when there is no MAC source address, or the bridge does not
filter based on source addresses.
-------------------------------------------------------
7) Added text.
>> Since there is no MAC/NPA address in the SNDU, ARP and NDP are
not required.
>
> ND for address resolution is not needed, but it may still be
needed for DAD or NUD.
Added:
The ND Protocol is also used to perform other functions beyond
address resolution, including Router Solicitation / Advertisement,
Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), Neighbor Unreachability Detection
Expires September 2007 [page 43]
INTERNET DRAFT AR Mechanisms for IP over MPEG-2 Networks Mar 2007
(NUD), Redirect. These functions are useful for hosts, even when
address resolution is not required.
And then in this place:
The ND protocol may still be required to support DAD, and other
network functions. However, since there is no MAC source address,
there is no way for a system to differentiate DAD packets sent by
itself from those that may have been sent by another system with the
same L3 address, DAD therefore can not be used in topologies where
this L2 forwarding may occur (e.g. UDLR).
-------------------------------------------------------
8) Section 6.1 ULE without a destination MAC/NPA address (D=1)
Added text stating the need to support multicast for RAs.
-------------------------------------------------------
9) Added that Bridging over MPE/LLC is currently under-specified.
Therefore implementations may vary, and it should NOT be assumed
that frames sent using the Receiver's MAC address are necessarily
delivered to the Receiver's IP stack.
-------------------------------------------------------
10) Changed Section 3 text to <authenticate the AR information to
protect against address masquerading>, given that we can not prevent
this, only defend against it.
------------------------------------------------------
11) Added citation to Satlabs recommendation, these documents are
now much more complete and provide valuable references to the
method. The latest spec also defines an IPv6 mode.
------------------------------------------------------
12) Updated draft referenced with published RFC numbers.
[>>> NOTE to RFC Editor: End of appendix]
Expires September 2007 [page 44]