PIM DR Improvement
draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-06

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pim WG)
Last updated 2019-01-02 (latest revision 2018-06-28)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PIM WG                                                      Zheng. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                               Fangwei. Hu
Intended status: Standards Track                            Benchong. Xu
Expires: July 6, 2019                                    ZTE Corporation
                                                       Mankamana. Mishra
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         January 2, 2019

                           PIM DR Improvement
                  draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-06.txt

Abstract

   PIM is widely deployed multicast protocol.  PIM protocol is defined
   in [RFC7761].  As deployment for PIM protocol is growing day by day,
   user expects lower traffic loss and faster convergence in case of any
   network failure.  This document provides extension to the existing
   protocol which would improve stability of PIM protocol with respect
   to traffic loss and convergence time when the PIM DR is down.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Zhang, et al.             Expires July 6, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             PIM DR Improvement               January 2019

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PIM hello message format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  DR Address Option format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  BDR Address Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  The Protocol Treatment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Deployment Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Election Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Sending Hello Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Receiving Hello Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  The treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.6.  Sender side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Deployment suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Multicast technology is used widely.  Many modern technologies, such
   as IPTV, Net-Meeting, use PIM-SM to facilitate multicast service.
   There are many events that will influence the quality of multicast
   services.  Like the change of unicast routes, the change of the PIM-
   SM DR may cause the loss of multicast packets too.

   After a DR on a shared-media LAN went down, other routers will elect
   a new DR after the expiration of Hello-Holdtime.  The default value
   of Hello-Holdtime is 105 seconds.  Although the minimum Hello
   interval can be adjust to 1 second and the Hello-Holdtime is 3.5
   times Hello interval.  Thus, the detection of DR Down event cannot be
   guaranteed in less than 3.5 seconds.  And it is still too long for
   modern multicast services.  Still, may multicast packets will be
   lost.  The quality of IPTV and Net-Meeting will be influenced.

Zhang, et al.             Expires July 6, 2019                  [Page 2]
Show full document text