Skip to main content

LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay RLOC Mappings

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Vengada Prasad Govindan , Dino Farinacci , Aswin Kuppusami , Stig Venaas
Last updated 2024-05-03
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                   V. Govindan, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Experimental                               D. Farinacci
Expires: 4 November 2024                           
                                                            A. Kuppusami
                                                               S. Venaas
                                                              3 May 2024

         LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay RLOC Mappings


   This draft augments LISP [RFC9300] multicast functionality described
   in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis] and
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis] to support the mapping of overlay
   group addresses to underlay RLOC addresses.  This draft defines a
   many-to-1, 1-to-many, and many-to-many relationship between multicast
   EIDs and the Replication List Entries (RLEs) RLOC records they map
   to.  The mechanisms in this draft allow a multicast LISP overlay to
   run over a mixed underlay of unicast and/or multicast packet
   forwarding functionality.

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 4 November 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (
   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 to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Source Site Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Hashed Based Underlay Group Selection . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Mapping System Lookup Based Underlay Group Selection  . . . .   5
   7.  Receiver Site Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Interworking with non-Overlay Receivers . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     B.1.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-03  . . . . . . .   9
     B.2.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-02  . . . . . . .   9
     B.3.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-01  . . . . . . .   9
     B.4.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-00  . . . . . . .   9
     B.5.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-underlay-multicast-trees-00 . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Requirements Language

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

2.  Introduction

   When a multicast capable underlay connects multiple LISP sites, we
   can take advantage of the multicast capabilities and perform
   replication more efficiently than using head-end replication.  This
   draft addresses the problem of selecting the underlay multicast
   group(s) to transport a given overlay multicast flow.  There are 4
   different scenarios possible:

   1.  A 1:1 mapping of a overlay multicast flow, either a (Source,
       Group) or (*, Group) to an underlay group.

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   2.  A many:1 mapping where many overlay multicast flows share the
       same underlay group.

   3.  A 1:many mapping where a single overlay group is transported over
       different underlay groups.  Note in this case, the "many" means
       mapping one EID to multiple RLOCs in a RLE-set where the set can
       be a mix of underlay groups and underlay unicast addresses.  It
       is really important that this algorithm compute unicast RLOCs as
       well as multicast RLOCs.

   4.  Given the "many" mapping case relationship above, a 4th
       relationship of m:n many-to-many mappings exist and will be

   There are two methods being proposed to derive an underlay group from
   an overlay group:

   *  Computation based underlay group assignment using a hash function.
      Here all ETRs will use the same multicast underlay group, when
      they are all on the same native multicast forwarding underlay.
      The ETRs hash the bits of the group address G for an (S-EID, G)
      flow.  The low-order 24-bits of the hash is used to produce an
      IPv4 underlay group address.  The low-order 120-bits of the hash
      is used to produce an IPv6 underlay group address.

   *  Lookup based group assignment where a mapping system lookup is
      used to coordinate the assignment of the underlay group among

   The scope of this draft covers underlays based on IPv4 and IPv6 only.
   It does not cover other transport mechanisms like BIER, multicast
   MPLS, or layer-2 underlays.

3.  Definition of Terms

   Note all terminology used in this document is based on the formal
   definitions from [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis] and
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis].  The definitions below extend these
   formal definitions to address the introduction of group overlay to
   group/unicast underlay mappings.

   (S-EID,G):  refers to multicast state in multicast source and
      receiver sites where S-EID is the IP address of the multicast
      source host (its EID).  An S-EID can appear in an IGMPv3 report,
      an MSDP SA message or a PIM Join/Prune message that travels inside
      of a site.  The notation (S-EID,G-EID) is also used to signify
      that this is an overlay source and overlay group entry.

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   (S-RLOC G):  refers to multicast state in the underlay core where
      S-RLOC is a source address of the ITR that is performing
      encapsulation.  The notation (S-RLOC,G-RLOC) is also used to
      denote G-RLOC as the underlay group address.  The (S-RLOC,G-RLOC)
      is mapped from the (S-EID,G-EID) entry by doing a mapping database
      lookup for (S-EID,G-EID).

   (S-RLOC,U-RLOC):  refers to multicast state in the underlay core
      where S-RLOC is a source address of the ITR that is performing
      encapsulation.  In this case, the underlay RLOC is a unicast
      address and denoted as U-RLOC.  A U-RLOC is used for encapsulation
      when it is determined that the ETR has no multicast connectivity
      and cannot be reached via a G-RLOC.  So the ITR encapsulates to
      the unicast address U-RLOC of the ETR.

   RLE:  is an Replication List Entry encoding used for replicating
      multicast packets which are encapsulated.  The list can be made up
      of multiple G-RLOCs and U-RLOCs.  The RLE appears in control
      messages in a single RLOC-record.

   Multicast Mapping:  an entry in the mapping system that maps a
      multicast (S-EID,G-EID) or (*,G-EID) entry to an RLOC-set.  An
      example would be EID: (S-EID,G-EID) -> RLE-set: [G-RLOCa, G-RLOCb,
      U-RLOCc U-RLOCd] where the S-EID is the source of a multicast
      packet sending to a G-EID destination.  The RLOC-record is an RLE
      entry made up of 4 replications, the first to G-RLOCa, the second
      to G-RLOCb, the third to U-RLOCc, and finally to U-RLOCd.  It is
      at the discretion of the encapsulator (an ITR or RTR) what source
      RLOC address is used as the source address in the outer header.

4.  Source Site Procedures

   The Source Site Procedures from [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis] are
   followed for overlay nodes and [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis] for
   non-overlay nodes.  There are no modifications to these procedures
   other than the source multicast site -ITR should be capable of
   replicating to multiple G-RLOC and U-RLOC addresses from its map-

5.  Hashed Based Underlay Group Selection

   When an ETR receives an IGMP/MLD report it needs to decide which
   G-RLOC to underlay join.  A hash-based algorithm can be used so all
   ETRs that process the report can join the same G-RLOC.  Therefore
   when an (S-EID,G-EID) is reported, the hash will be over the pair of
   32-bits for IPv4 IGMP reports and over the pair of 128-bits for IPv6
   MLD reports.  When (*,G-EID) is being reported, the hash is over just
   G-EID.  The hash function used will be sha256 [RFC6234].

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   The hashed based approach creates perfect replication since it
   results in a 1-to-1 mapping, but at the expense of more underlay

6.  Mapping System Lookup Based Underlay Group Selection

   There will be scenarios where native multicast underlay provider will
   want to control what group addresses are used in the network.
   Therefore, a hashed based algorithm may be at conflict.  In this case
   G-RLOCs need to be registered to the mapping system which are part of
   the provider supported group address block.

   The proposed procedure is for the provider to register the G-RLOC as
   an RLOC record for a distinguished-name EID encoded from procedures
   in [I-D.ietf-lisp-name-encoding].  The EID will be registered in a
   well defined and configured instance-id with name "group-<group-

   For example, say there exists a G-EID of and a provider
   G-RLOC of  When a receiver joins G-EID, the
   receiving ETR lookups up EID "group-" which returns an
   G-RLOC of  The ETR uses as the G-RLOC to
   register the (S-EID,G-EID) to the mapping system.

   Using this method, the provider can create 1-to-many, many-to-1, and
   many-to-many relationships between G-EID and G-RLOC.  The provider
   could also have EID "group-" map to a (S-RLOC,G-RLOC) so an
   SSM based distribution tree can be joined in the underlay, by either
   PIM or IGMP/MLD.  This example illustrates how to do a many-to-1
   mapping by having multiple distinguish-name entries (encoded with
   different G-EID addresses) map to a single G-RLOC.

   In a many-to-many scenario, the ETR could be configured with a G-EID
   set of prefixes so a power-of-2 range of G-EIDs would be looked up
   that returns a single G-RLOC.  For example, say there exists and G-EID prefix ranges and G-RLOCs and  The provider allows only 2 underlay groups
   to be used but the overlay has large ranges of G-EIDs.  So the
   provider registers to the mapping system "group-" with
   G-RLOC and "group-" with G-RLOC
   When an ETR receives an IGMP report for, it registers G-EID with G-RLOC  It can even scale better, by
   registering G-EID with G-RLOC so subsequent
   IGMP reports in the range would not need to be
   registered.  But this does come at expense of receiving multicast
   packets for a G-EID when there are no receivers.

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   When using multicast and G-EID prefixes, there is a tradeoff between
   state in the underlay and using unnecessary bandwidth.

7.  Receiver Site Procedures

   The Receiver Site Procedures from [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis] are
   followed.  This draft adds an additional step to the procedure on how
   should to select the G-RLOC address for registration.

   From the two approaches to obtain a G-RLOC address discussed in the
   previous sections, the ETR can start and complete the (S-EID,G-EID)
   registration process:

   1.  When ETR receives either an IGMP or MLD report, be it (S,G) or
       (*,G), the entry is used as the multicast EID to Map-Register to
       the mapping system.  Just like [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis]
       and [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis] specify.

   2.  If the ETR is connected to a native multicast underlay, it will
       register (S-EID,G-EID) or (*,G-EID) with a G-RLOC based on one of
       G-RLOC selection options.  All ETRs joining the same underlay
       group for a given overlay group MUST use the same G-RLOC
       selection option.  For early versions of this design, the network
       operator configures the option consistently in all ETRs.  The
       ITRs do not need such configuration since they use what the
       mapping system returns.

   3.  If the ETR is configured to know there are ITRs that are not on
       the same native multicast underlay, it MAY also register its
       U-RLOC.  The ITR will determine which RLOC to use by the testing
       reachability via RLOC-probing according to [RFC9301].

   4.  Other ETRs registering the same (S-EID,G-EID) or (*,G-EID)
       entries, will choose the same underlay group G-RLOC so when the
       ITR replicates to G-RLOC, all ETRs receive the packet so they can
       deliver to multicast receivers.

   5.  After the registration is performed by ETRs, they need to tell
       the underlay to deliver multicast packets to them for G-RLOC.
       They do that by either sending PIM-Join messages into the
       underlay PIM domain or they send IGMP/MLD reports.  This is left
       to the implementation to decide.

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   If ETRs underlay join on more than one interface, they may receive
   duplicate packets.  Care must be taken to not IGMP/MLD join on
   multiple interfaces or duplicates will occur.  If PIM joining occurs
   on different interfaces, RPF failures will occur to stop the
   duplicates from being delivered to receivers but at the expense of
   using unnecessary underlay bandwidth.

   Packet duplicates can also occur when ETRs register both G-RLOC and
   their own U-RLOC addresses to the mapping system.  ETRs cannot
   deregister one or the other when they see duplicates because
   different ITRs use the same mapping, so some will be on the multicast
   underlay and some will not.  In the case, when they are on a
   multicast underlay, duplicates will occur across the RLOCs.  The ETRs
   must monitor this and not answer RLOC probes sent to the U-RLOC so
   the ITR suppresses sending to it.

8.  Interworking with non-Overlay Receivers

   If there are multicast receivers that IGMP/MLD join a G-EID but are
   not attached to a native multicast underlay, they cannot receive
   multicast packets.  They cannot receive multicast packets from
   overlay attached sources because the ITR has no ETR to encapsulate
   to.  Hence, they are not on the overlay.  However, if they are
   attached to a native multicast underlay, they can receive multicast

   There are numerous multicast connectivity combinations which are
   documented in detail in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis].  Those
   procedures should be followed to deliver multicast packets from
   overlay attached sources to underlay only attached receivers.  As
   well as non-overlay attach sources to overlay attached receivers.

9.  IANA Considerations

   There are no requests for IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations at this time.

11.  Normative References

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

              Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis-00, 3 May 2024,

              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc8378bis-00, 3 May
              2024, <

              Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-
              06, 15 April 2024, <

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <>.

   [RFC9300]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,

   [RFC9301]  Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
              Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the LISP WG for their careful review
   and commentary.  A special thank you goes to Stig Venaas.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

B.1.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-03

   *  Submitted May 2024.

   *  Added references to 6831bis and 8378bis as we put those RFCs to
      draft standards track.

B.2.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-02

   *  Submitted April 2024.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.3.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-01

   *  Submitted October 2023.

   *  Update document timer and references.

B.4.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-group-mapping-00

   *  Submitted April 2023.

   *  Completed adding details to compliment
      [I-D.farinacci-lisp-rfc6831bis] and

   *  Changed name to draft-vdas-lisp-group-mapping-00 from draft-vda-

B.5.  Changes to draft-vda-lisp-underlay-multicast-trees-00

   *  Initial posting December 2020.

Authors' Addresses

   Vengada Prasad Govindan (editor)

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  LISP Multicast Overlay Group to Underlay        May 2024

   Dino Farinacci

   Aswin Kuppusami

   Stig Venaas

Govindan, et al.         Expires 4 November 2024               [Page 10]