Skip to main content

Multicast only Fast Re-Route

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7431.
Authors Apoorva Karan , Clarence Filsfils , IJsbrand Wijnands , Bruno Decraene
Last updated 2015-05-14 (Latest revision 2015-05-12)
Replaces draft-karan-mofrr
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Alvaro Retana
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2015-02-11
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7431 (Informational)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Alia Atlas
Send notices to,,,,
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
Network Working Group                                           A. Karan
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Informational                         IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Expires: November 13, 2015                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                            May 12, 2015

                      Multicast only Fast Re-Route


   As IPTV deployments grow in number and size, service providers are
   looking for solutions that minimize the service disruption due to
   faults in the IP network carrying the packets for these services.
   This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a
   network when node or link failures occur.  Multicast only Fast Re-
   Route (MoFRR) works by making simple enhancements to multicast
   routing protocols such as PIM and mLDP.

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

   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 November 13, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Basic Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Determination of the secondary UMH  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Non-ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Upstream Multicast Hop Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  mLDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Detecting Failures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  MoFRR applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Dual-Plane Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Other Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  Capacity Planning for MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.4.  PE nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.5.  Other Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Different solutions have been developed and deployed to improve
   service guarantees, both for multicast video traffic and Video on
   Demand traffic.  Most of these solutions are geared towards finding
   an alternate path around one or more failed network elements (link,
   node, path failures).

   This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a
   network when node or link failures occur.  Multicast only Fast Re-
   Route (MoFRR) works by making simple changes to the way selected
   routers use multicast protocols such as PIM and mLDP.  No changes to
   the protocols themselves are required.  With MoFRR, in many cases,
   multicast routing protocols don't necessarily have to depend on or

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   have to wait on unicast routing protocols to detect network failures,
   see Section 5

   On a Merge Point MoFRR logic determines a primary Upstream Multicast
   Hop (UMH) and a secondary UMH and joins the tree via both
   simultaneously.  Data packets are received over the primary and
   secondary paths.  Only the packets from the primary UMH are accepted
   and forwarded down the tree, the packets from the secondary UMH are
   discarded.  The UMH determination is different for PIM and mLDP and
   explained in Section 4.  When a failure is detected on the path to
   the primary UMH, the repair occurs by changing the secondary UMH into
   the primary and the primary into the secondary.  Since the repair is
   local, it is fast - greatly improving convergence times in the event
   of node or link failures on the path to the primary UMH.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   MoFRR:  Multicast only Fast Re-Route.

   ECMP:  Equal Cost Multi-Path.

   mLDP:  Multi-point Label Distribution Protocol.

   PIM:  Protocol Independent Multicast.

   UMH:  Upstream Multicast Hop, a candidate next-hop that can be used
      to reach the root of the tree.

   tree:  Either a PIM (S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP.

   OIF:  Outgoing InterFace, an interface used to forward multicast
      packets down the tree towards the receivers.  Either a PIM
      (S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP.

   LFA:  Loop Free Alternate as defined in [RFC5286] In unicast Fast
      ReRoute, this is an alternate next-hop which can be used to reach
      a unicast destination without using the protected link or node.

   Merge Point:  A router that joins a multicast stream via two
      divergent upstream paths.

   RPF:  Reverse Path Forwarding.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   RP:  Rendezvous Point.

   LSR:  Label Switched Router.

   BFD:  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.

   IGP:  Interior Gateway Protocol.

   MVPN:  Multicast Virtual Private Networks.

2.  Basic Overview

   The basic idea of MoFRR is for a Merge Point router to join a
   multicast tree via two divergent upstream paths in order to get
   maximum redundancy.  The determination of this alternate upstream is
   defined in Section 3.

   In order to maximize robustness against any failure, the two paths
   should be as diverse as possible.  Ideally, they should not merge
   upstream.  Sometimes the topology guarantees maximal redundancy,
   other times additional configuration or techniques are needed to
   enforce it.  See Section 6 for more discussion on the applicability
   of MoFRR depending on the network topology.

   A Merge Point router should only accept and forward on one of the
   upstream paths at a time in order to avoid duplicate packet
   forwarding.  The selection of the primary and secondary UMH is done
   by the MoFRR logic and normally based on unicast routing to find loop
   free candidates.  This is described in Section 4.

   Note, the impact of additional amount of data on the network is
   mitigated when tree membership is densely populated.  When a part of
   the network has redundant data flowing, join latency for new joining
   members is reduced because its likely a tree Merge Point is not far

3.  Determination of the secondary UMH

   The secondary UMH is a Loop Free Alternate (LFA) as per [RFC5286].

3.1.  ECMP-mode MoFRR

   If the IGP installs two ECMP paths to the source, then as per
   [RFC5286] the LFA is a primary Next-hop.  If the Multicast tree is
   enabled for ECMP-Mode MoFRR, the router installs them as primary and
   secondary UMH.  Before the failure, only packets received from the
   primary UMH path are processed while packets received from the
   secondary UMH are dropped.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   The selected primary UMH SHOULD be the same as if the MoFRR extension
   was not enabled.

   If more than two ECMP paths exist, one is selected as primary and
   another as secondary UMH.  The selection of the primary and secondary
   is a local decision.  Information from the IGP link-state topology
   could be leveraged to optimize this selection such that the primary
   and secondary path are maximal divergent and don't lead to the same
   upstream node.  Note that MoFRR does not restrict the number of UMH
   paths that are joined.  Implementations may use as many paths as are

3.2.  Non-ECMP-mode MoFRR

   A router X configured for non-ECMP-mode MoFRR for a Multicast tree
   joins a primary path to its primary UMH and a secondary path to its
   LFA UMH.  In order to prevent control-plane loops a router MUST stop
   joining the secondary UMH if this UMH is the only member in the OIF

   To illustrate the reason for this rule, let's consider the example in
   FIG3.  If PE1 and PE2 have received an IGMP request for a Multicast
   tree, they will both join the primary path on their plane and a
   secondary path to the neighbor PE.  If their receivers would leave at
   the same time, it could be possible for the Multicast tree on PE1 and
   PE2 to never get deleted as each PE refresh each other via the
   secondary path joins (remember that a secondary path join is not
   distinguishable from a primary join).

4.  Upstream Multicast Hop Selection

   An Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) is a candidate next-hop that can be
   used to reach the root of the tree.  This is normally based on
   unicast routing to find loop free candidate(s).  With MoFRR
   procedures we select a primary and a backup UMH.  The procedures for
   determining the UMH are different for PIM and mLDP.  See below;

4.1.  PIM

   The UMH selection in PIM is also known as the Reverse Path Forwarding
   (RPF) procedure.  Based on a unicast route lookup on either the
   Source address or Rendezvous Point (RP) [RFC4601], an upstream
   interface is selected for sending the PIM Joins/Prunes AND accepting
   the multicast packets.  The interface the packets are received on is
   used to pass or fail the RPF check.  If packets are received on an
   interface that was not selected by the RPF procedure, or not the
   primary, the packets are discarded.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

4.2.  mLDP

   The UMH selection in mLDP also depends on unicast routing, but the
   difference with PIM is that the acceptance of multicast packets is
   based on MPLS labels and independent of the interface the packet is
   received on.  Using the procedures as defined in [RFC6388] an
   upstream Label Switched Router (LSR) is elected.  The upstream LSR
   that was elected for a Label Switched Path (LSP) gets a unique local
   MPLS Label allocated.  Multicast packets are only forwarded if the
   MPLS label matches the MPLS label that was allocated for that LSPs
   (primary) upstream LSR.

5.  Detecting Failures

   Once the two paths are established, the next step is detecting a
   failure on the primary path to know when to switch to the backup
   path.  This is a local issue but this section explore some

   The first (and simplest) option is to detect the failure of the local
   interface as it it's done for unicast Fast ReRoute.  Detection can be
   performed using the loss of signal or the loss of probing packets
   (e.g.  BFD).  This option can be used in combination with the other
   options as documented below.  Just like for unicast fast reroute,
   50msec switch-over is possible.

   A second option consists of comparing the packets received on the
   primary and secondary streams but only forwarding one of them -- the
   first one received, no matter which interface it is received on.
   Zero packet loss is possible for RTP-based streams.

   A third option assumes a minimum known packet rate for a given data
   stream.  If a packet is not received on the primary RPF within this
   time frame, the router assumes primary path failure and switches to
   the secondary RPF interface. 50msec switch-over may be possible for
   high rate stream (e.g.  IP TV where SD video has a continuous inter-
   packet gap of ~ 3msec) but in general the delay is dependant on the
   rate of the multicast stream.

   A fourth option leverages the significant improvements of the IGP
   convergence speed.  When the primary path to the source is withdrawn
   by the IGP, the MoFRR-enabled router switches over to the backup
   path, the UMH is changed to the secondary UMH.  Since the secondary
   path is already in place, and assuming it is disjoint from the
   primary path, convergence times would not include the time required
   to build a new tree and hence are smaller.  Sub-second to sub-200msec
   switch-over should be possible.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

6.  MoFRR applicability

   MoFRR applicability is topology dependent.  The applicability is the
   same as LFA FRR which is discussed in [RFC6571].

   The following section will discuss MoFRR applicability to dual-plane
   network topologies.

6.1.  Dual-Plane Topology

   MoFRR works best in dual-planes topologies as illustrated in the
   figures below.  MoFRR may be enabled on any router in the network.
   In the figures below, MoFRR is shown enabled on the Provider Edge
   (PE) routers to illustrate one way in which the technology may be

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

                   P    / \ P
                       /   \
                ^    G1     R1  ^
                P    /       \  P
                    /         \
                   G2----------R2   ^
                   | \         | \  P
               ^   |  \        |  \
               P   |   G3----------R3
                   |    |      |    |
                   |    |      |    | ^
                   G4---|------R4   | P
                 ^   \  |        \  |
                 P    \ |         \ |
                   ^   |           | ^
                   P   |           | P
                       |           |
                      Gi           Ri
                       \ \__    ^  /|
                        \   \   S1/ | ^
                       ^ \  ^\   /  |P2
                       P1 \ S2\_/__ |
                           \   /   \|
                            PE1     PE2
   P = Primary path
   S = Secondary path

         FIG1. Two-Plane Network Design

   The topology has two planes, a primary plane and a secondary plane
   that are fully disjoint from each other all the way into the POPs.
   This two plane design is common in service provider networks as it
   eliminates single point of failures in their core network.  The links
   marked P indicate the normal (Primary) path of how the PIM joins flow
   from the POPs towards the source of the network.  Multicast streams,
   especially for the densely watched channels, typically flow along
   both the planes in the network anyway.

   The only change MoFRR adds to this is on the links marked S where the
   PE routers join a secondary path to their secondary ECMP UMH.  As a
   result of this, each PE router receives two copies of the same
   stream, one from the primary plane and the other from the secondary
   plane.  As a result of normal UMH behavior, the multicast stream
   received over the primary path is accepted and forwarded to the

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   downstream receivers.  The copy of the stream received from the
   secondary UNH is discarded.

   When a router detects a routing failure on the path to its primary
   UMH, it will switch to the secondary UMH and accept packets for that
   stream.  If the failure is repaired the router may switch back.  The
   primary and secondary UMHs have only local context and not end-to-end

   As one can see, MoFRR achieves the faster convergence by pre-building
   the secondary multicast tree and receiving the traffic on that
   secondary path.  The example discussed above is a simple case where
   there are two ECMP paths from each PE device towards the source, one
   along the primary plane and one along the secondary.  In cases where
   the topology is asymmetric or is a ring, this ECMP nature does not
   hold, and additional rules have to be taken into account to choose
   when and where to join the secondary path.

   MoFRR is appealing in such topologies for the following reasons:

   1.  Ease of deployment and simplicity: the functionality is only
       required on the PE devices although it may be configured on all
       routers in the topology.  Furthermore, each PE device can be
       enabled separately, there is no need for a network wide
       coordination in order to deploy MoFRR.  Inter-operability testing
       is not required as there are no PIM or mLDP protocol change.

   2.  End-to-end failure detection and recovery: any failure along the
       path from the source to the PE can be detected and repaired with
       the secondary disjoint stream.(see Section 5 options 2, 3, 4)

   3.  Capacity Efficiency: as illustrated in the previous example, the
       Multicast trees corresponding to IPTV channels cover the backbone
       and distribution topology in a very dense manner.  As a
       consequence, the secondary path graft into the normal Multicast
       trees (ie. trees signaled by PIM or mLDP without MoFRR extension)
       at the aggregation level and hence do not demand any extra
       capacity either on the distribution links or in the backbone.
       They simply use the capacity that is normally used, without any
       duplication.  This is different from conventional FRR mechanisms
       which often duplicate the capacity requirements when the backup
       path crosses links/nodes which already carry the primary/normal
       tree and hence twice as much capacity is required.

   4.  Loop free: the secondary path join is sent on an ECMP disjoint
       path.  By definition, the neighbor receiving this request is
       closer to the source and hence will not cause a loop.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   The topology we just analyzed is very frequent and can be modelled as
   per Fig2.  The PE has two ECMP disjoint paths to the source.  Each
   ECMP path uses a disjoint plane of the network.

                            /    \
                        Plane1  Plane2
                           |      |
                           A1    A2
                             \  /

           FIG2. PE is dual-homed to Dual-Plane Backbone

   Another frequent topology is described in Fig 3.  PEs are grouped by
   pairs.  In each pair, each PE is connected to a different plane.
   Each PE has one single shortest-path to a source (via its connected
   plane).  There is no ECMP like in Fig 2.  However, there is clearly a
   way to provide MoFRR benefits as each PE can offer a disjoint
   secondary path to the other plane PE (via the disjoint path).

   MoFRR secondary neighbor selection process needs to be extended in
   this case as one cannot simply rely on using an ECMP path as
   secondary neighbor.  This extension is referred to as non-ecmp
   extension and is described in Section 3.2.

                                /    \
                            Plane1  Plane2
                               |      |
                               A1    A2
                               |      |

           FIG3. PEs are connected in pairs to Dual-Plane Backbone

6.2.  Other Topologies

   As mentioned in section Section 6.1, MoFRR works best in dual-plane
   topologies.  If MoFRR is applied to none dual-plane networks, its
   possible that the secondary path is effected by the same failure that
   effected the primary path.  In that case, there is no guarentee that
   the backup path will provide an un-interupted traffic flow of packets
   without loss or duplication.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

6.3.  Capacity Planning for MoFRR

   The previous section has described two very frequent designs (Fig 2
   and Fig 3) which provide maximum MoFRR benefits.

   Designers with topologies different than Fig2 and 3 can still benefit
   from MoFRR thanks to the use of capacity planning tools.

   Such tools are able to simulate the ability of each PE to build two
   disjoint branches of the same tree.  This for hundreds of PEs and
   hundreds of sources.

   This allows to assess the MoFRR protection coverage of a given
   network, for a set of sources.

   If the protection coverage is deemed insufficient, the designer can
   use such tool to optimize the topology (add links, change IGP

6.4.  PE nodes

   Many Service Providers devise their topology such that PEs have
   disjoint paths to the multicast sources.  MoFRR leverages the
   existence of these disjoint paths without any PIM or mLDP protocol
   modification.  Interoperability testing is thus not required.  In
   such topologies, MoFRR only needs to be deployed on the PE devices.
   Each PE device can be enabled one by one.

6.5.  Other Applications

   While all the examples in this document show the MoFRR applicability
   on PE devices, it is clear that MoFRR could be enabled on aggregation
   or core routers.

   MoFRR can be popular in Data Center network configurations.  With the
   advent of lower cost ethernet and increasing port density in routers,
   there is more meshed connectivity than ever before.  When using a
   3-level access, distribution, and core layers in a Data Center, there
   is a lot of inexpensive bandwidth connecting the layers.  This will
   lend itself to more opportunities for ECMP paths at multiple layers.
   This allows for multiple layers of redundancy protecting link and
   node failure at each layer with minimal redundancy cost.

   Redundancy costs are reduced because only one packet is forwarded at
   every link along the primary and secondary data paths so there is no
   duplication of data on any link thereby providing make-before-break
   protection at a very small cost.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   A MoFRR router only accepts packets from the primary path and
   discards packets from the secondary path.  For that reason,
   management applications (like ping and mtrace) will not work when
   verifying the secondary path.

   The MoFRR principle may be applied to MVPNs.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

8.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations for this design other than what
   is already in the main PIM specification [RFC4601] and mLDP
   specification [RFC6388].

9.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Dave Oran and Alvaro Retana for their review and comments
   on this document.

   The authors would like to especially acknowledge the contribution
   from Dino Farinacci, John Zwiebel and Greg Shepherd for the genesis
   of the MoFRR concept.

10.  Contributor Addresses

   Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   Dino Farinacci

   Wim Henderickx
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp  2018

   Uwe Joorde
   Deutsche Telekom
   Dahlweg 100
   D-48153 Muenster

   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
   Berlin  10781

   Jeff Tantsura
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose CA 95134

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                    MoFRR                         May 2015

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
              "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
              Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.

   [RFC6571]  Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
              Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
              Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
              Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Apoorva Karan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose  CA, 95134


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  BRABANT 1831


   IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831


   Bruno Decraene
   38-40 rue du General Leclerc
   Issy Moulineaux  Cedex 9, 92794


Karan, et al.           Expires November 13, 2015              [Page 14]