IGP Multicast Architecture
draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Lucy Yong , Dean Cheng , Hao Weiguo , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Andrew Qu , Jon Hudson , Uma Chunduri | ||
| Last updated | 2015-03-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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) |
draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch-00
Network Working Group L. Yong
Internet-Draft D. Cheng
Intended status: Standards Track W. Hao
Expires: September 5, 2015 D. Eastlake
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
A. Qu
MediaTek
J. Hudson
Brocade
U. Chunduri
Ericsson Inc.
March 4, 2015
IGP Multicast Architecture
draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch-00
Abstract
This document specifies the architecture of IP multicast routing
using an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 http://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 September 5, 2015.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 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
(http://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
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. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Conventions used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. An Overview of IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Routing IP Multicast Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Multicast Distribution Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Bidirectional Distribution Tree . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Advertising Multicast Group Membership . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Requirements of Edge Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Intra-Area Multicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Inter-Area Multicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.1. Behavior of IS-IS L2 Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.2. Behavior of OSPF ABR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Heterogeneous Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. TE (Traffic Engineering) Support . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.8. Applications with Overlay Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9. IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
1.1. Overview
In an IP network, IGP is used to route and forward IP unicast
packets. In doing so, the routers collect and maintain the network
information and store them in their database. The network
information includes the identity of the routers and their
interconnections. In traffic engineering enabled network, the
information also includes traffic related parameters such as link
bandwidth. The network information that has already maintained on
routers, along with some minor IGP protocol extension as proposed in
this document, are sufficient to route IP multicast packets. This
means a single IGP can be used for routing both unicast packets and
multicast packets. This document describes the architecture of
routing IP multicast packets using the network information that is
disseminated by IGP.
1.2. Motivation
With the explosion of IP technology based applications, the support
of IP multicast delivery over the same IP network that carries IP
unicast traffic becomes mandatory. In many aspects, some basic
requirements for routing IP multicast packets are the same as those
for routing IP unicast packets; e.g., the "plug and play" nature of
bringing up the routing engine and enabling the packets forwarding.
It is desirable to use IGP that requires minimum configuration and
currently only routes and forwards IP unicast packets, also to route
and forward IP multicast packets.
Currently in an IP network, a separate protocol such as Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM - [RFC4601]) must be used to route and
forward IP multicast packets, whereby some network information are
actually retrieved from IGP. Using a single protocol, i.e., an IGP,
to route both IP unicast and multicast packets is with much
efficiency; e.g., there is no additional convergence time otherwise
would be introduced by the second protocol. Using one protocol also
reduces the operational complexity.
In an advanced data center network, it requires the decoupling of
network IP space from service IP space, e.g., a VxLAN based network
overlay [RFC7348]. To support all service applications, such IP
network fabric must support both unicast and multicast. Decoupling
network IP space from service IP address space also provides network
agility and programmability. If network IP space is decoupled from
service IP space, the network itself no longer needs manual
configuration; automatically forming an IP network fabric can be
done.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
1.3. Conventions used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.4. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
o Edge Router: A router that has direct interfaces with one or more
IP hosts.
o Distribution Tree: a rooted distribution tree with one root and
one or more leaves and it is used facilitate routing multicast
packets.
o IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
o Intra-Area: Refer to the communication between IGP routing nodes
within a single IGP's area.
o Inter-Area: Refer to the communication between IGP routing nodes
across area boundary.
o IP Multicast Group
o Link State Database: The database is constructed and maintained by
a router running link state based routing algorithm such as IS-IS
and OSPF. It contains network based information including
identity of routers and their interconnections, reachable IP
addresses, etc.
o Local Group Database: The database is constructed and maintained
by an edge router that stores and maintains entries of multicast-
address, host pair.
o Pruned Tree: A subset of IGP's topology graph and with a tree
root, from where, multicast packets are forwarded to one or more
destination nodes with optimization of the usage of links and
nodes.
o Root Node: A router served as a root in a multicast distribution
tree.
o TE (Traffic Engineering) Database: The database is constructed and
maintained by a router running link state based routing algorithm
with TE extensions such as ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE. It contains TE
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
parameters (such as bandwidth) that are associated with links and
nodes.
o Transit Router: A router that is capable of receiving an IP
multicast packet, then replicates it and sends to one or more
other routers on the downstream direction in the same multicast
distribution tree.
2. An Overview of IGP
There are currently two most deployed IGPs, and they are IS-IS
[RFC1195]/[RFC5308] and OSPF [RFC2328]/[RFC2740]. IS-IS and OSPF are
different in many aspects, but they both use link-state algorithm and
the network information they disseminate for the same IP network are
the same, including routers' IP addresses, routers' interconnections,
reachable IP addresses, the network topology, etc.
An IGP operation is with hierarchy. An IGP runs within an area,
where each participating router originates and advertises its own
information (router's identity, interface IP addresses, identity of
directly connected neighbors, etc.), and this information converges
throughout the entire area but not beyond. As a result, within an
IGP area, each participating router maintains the information of all
routers and their interconnections. We call the collection of the
network information as Link State Database, which is currently used
as a base to calculate IP routing table for unicast packets within an
IGP area. Sometimes we refer to the topology within an IGP area as a
topology graph. Separate IGP areas may be interconnected and between
areas, only reachability information is advertised across area
boundary by Level-2 router in IS-IS or Area Border Router (ABR) in
OSPF.
[RFC1195] specifies an IGP for routing IPv4 unicast packets using IS-
IS protocol (ISO), whereas [RFC5308] specifies the extensions to
support routing IPv6 unicast packets.
OSPFv2 [RFC2328] is an IGP for routing IPv4 unicast packets whereas
OSPFv3 [RFC2740] is an IGP for routing IPv6 unicast packets.
The link state based routing algorithm in OSPF and IS-IS calculates
the shortest path from the source to the destination. A routing
table for routing unicast packets is generated on every participating
IGP router.
For some applications, path restrictions (e.g., link bandwidth) need
to be considered. As a result, extensions are added to both IS-IS
and OSPF to support traffic engineering based unicast routing as
follows:
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
o [RFC3630] - Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2
o [RFC3784] - Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)
o [RFC5329] - Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3
A TE-capable IGP router, in addition to construct a Link State
Database, also constructs and maintains a TE Database that stores the
traffic parameters (e.g., bandwidth) associated with links and nodes,
where the information is used for constraint based consideration
during normal shortest path calculation.
3. Scope
To support IP multicast routing, either IS-IS or OSPF can be used and
in the perspective of this document, there is no difference in
choosing. And there requires no change in IS-IS or OSPF, except that
extensions are needed in both protocols to advertise and store
distribution tree root node address and multicast group receiver
information, refer to Section 4.2.
Using IGP to route IP multicast packets is within IGP's architecture
and routing paradigm. IP multicast routing within an IGP area is
called intra-area multicast routing, and IP multicast routing across
IGP area is called inter-area multicast routing. The concept, rules
and behavior regarding intra-area unicast routing and inter-area
unicast routing are all similarly applicable to intra-area and inter-
area multicast routing, respectively.
In an IPv4 network, IPv4 multicast packets can be routed using IS-IS
(based on [RFC1195]) or OSPFv2 as introduced by this document.
Similarly in an IPv6 network, IPv6 multicast packets can be routed
using IS-IS (based on [RFC5308]) or OSPFv3 [RFC2740]. As the
networking industry is currently under transition from IPv4 to IPv6,
co-existence of the two is sometimes required. Using the
architecture described in this document, IPv4 multicast packets can
be transported over an IPv6 network and vice versa, IPv6 multicast
packets can be transported over an IPv4 network.
4. Routing IP Multicast Packets
As illustrated in Figure 1, a single IGP can be deployed to support
both IP unicast and multicast routing.
This section describes routing IP multicast packets using the
existing network information that IGP collects, the related functions
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
and characteristics, along with the required extensions to existing
IGPs.
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IP Unicast | | IP Multicast|
| Routing | | Routing |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o------+ +------o------+
| Unicast | | Multicast |
|Routing Table| |Routing Table|
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o------+ +------o------+
| Shortest | | Distribution|
| Path Tree | | Path Tree |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o---------------o------+
| Link State Database |
+--------------^--------------+
|
+--------------o--------------+
| IGP |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | OSPF | | IS-IS | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
+-----------------------------+
Figure 1: Using an IGP to Route both IP Unicast and Multicast Packets
4.1. Multicast Distribution Tree
To route IP multicast packets, it requires a distribution tree. A
distribution tree consists of a tree root, one or more tree leaves,
and some branch nodes. The tree root is identified by the IP address
(or Router ID) of an arbitrary router. The tree root can be
configured for a specific IP multicast address group, or
automatically elected via an algorithm. A tree leaf is an edge
router and is a multicast destination. A tree leaf is identified by
an edge router's IP address and it is directly attached to one or
more hosts that advertise the IP multicast group addresses (see
Section 4.2 for details). A router that is not a tree root but
transmits a received IP multicast packet to another router is called
a Transit Router, which is a branch node in the distribution tree.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
In general, there is a single multicast distribution tree for each IP
multicast address group. Once a distribution tree is formed, an IP
packet with the multicast destination address is forwarded according
to the multicast distribution tree, i.e., from the tree root to all
tree leaves.
Via configuration, additional distribution tree can be constructed
for the same IP multicast address group, however with different tree
root and tree branches (paths). This option provides a redundancy
for routing path protection, and it can also be used to support load
balance.
When a leaf node of a multicast distribution tree is in the same IGP
area as the tree node, the packet flow from the root to the leaf is
within a single IGP area. This behavior is called IGP intra-area
multicast routing.
When a leaf node of a multicast distribution tree is in a different
IGP area as the tree node, the packet flow from the root to the leaf
must cross IGP area boundary. This behavior is called IGP inter-area
multicast routing.
Unicast routing in an IGP domain requires minimum configuration.
This characteristic is inherited for multicast routing, i.e., there
requires minimum configuration and a multicast distribution tree can
generally be constructed quickly in the same manner as a unicast
routing table.
4.1.1. Bidirectional Distribution Tree
The IP multicast distribution tree as described above is uni-
directional, i.e., all leaf nodes can only receive multicast packets
destined to a given multicast address. In this scenario, the tree
root may be the traffic source and if not, the source must unicasts
packets to the tree root, which then distributes the packets
according to the distribution tree. The uni-directionality of
distribution tree is useful for applications such as video
broadcasting.
A multicast distribution tree can also be constructed as bi-
directional. In a bi-directional distribution tree, IP multicast
packets destined to a given multicast address can traverse on any
tree branch in both directions; that means any leaf node on the tree
can be a multicast receiver but also a sender. When a tree leaf node
is a sender, it transmits its multicast packets to all other leaf
nodes according to the bi-directional distribution tree. The bi-
directionality of distribution tree is useful for applications such
as network virtualization overlays ([RFC7365]) and video conference.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
The algorithm to build a uni-directional distribution tree is in
general different from that to build a bi-directional tree. In both
cases, care must be taken in order to build an optimized multicast
distribution tree, such as the consideration of the average path
length from the root to leaf nodes, the total links (branches) used
for the distribution, etc.
Configuration (along with a default) may be used to specify the
directionality of an IP multicast distribution tree for a given IP
multicast address group.
4.2. Advertising Multicast Group Membership
In order to support multicast routing, an IGP must be extended to
store and advertise IP multicast addresses in the similar manner
currently for IP unicast addresses.
Pairs of [multicast-group, host] can be configured on an edge router,
or learned from the interaction with IGMP/MLD(see Section 4.3). In
either case, the router would be required to advertise the IP
multicast group membership throughout the IGP area. The advertising,
refresh, aging, and removal of IP multicast addresses are handled in
the same manner as the existing database element, i.e., LSP in IS-IS
and LSA in OSPF.
IP multicast addresses can also be advertised across IGP area
boundary using similar mechanism as for IP unicast addresses. IP
multicast addresses may be summarized similar to that of IP unicast
addresses for scaling purpose.
The details of storing and advertising IP multicast address using IS-
IS is specified in a separate document.
The details of storing and advertising IP multicast address using
OSPF is specified in a separate document.
4.3. Requirements of Edge Routers
To support routing IP multicast packets, edge routers, i.e., routers
that have interfaces directly connected to IP hosts, are required to
run IGMP (IGMPv2/[RFC2236] or IGMPv3/[RFC3376]) for IPv4 based hosts
and MLD (MLD/[RFC2710] or MLDv2/[RFC3810]) for IPv6 based hosts.
As the result of interaction with hosts, an edge router would build a
Local Group Database where each entry is a [multicast-group, host]
pair, which indicates that the attached host belonging to the IP
multicast group. This process is on-going in order to keep track of
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
the IP group membership addresses of attached hosts and strictly
according to protocol specification of IGMP/MLD.
The Local Group Database is used in two folds. First, when an edge
router receives an inbound IP multicast packet, it checks in the
database to see if any entry that has any matching IP multicast-group
address against the destination address in the received packet, and
if so, the packet is forwarded to the local host(s); otherwise the
packet is dropped. Note this behavior already exists on edge routers
that support IP multicast forwarding.
Second, an edge router is required to advertise/flush the IP
multicast addresses learnt/withdrew from IGMP/MLD procedure to/from
other routers in the same IGP area, in the similar manner as
advertising/flushing its own interface IP addresses. With this
procedure, an IP multicast distribution tree can be built for each IP
multicast address group. The details for advertising multicast
addresses by IS-IS and OSPF will be documented separately.
In some deployment, a host as a multicast destination or source may
connect to more than one edge routers for the purpose of reliability
or/and load balance, as normally termed as multi-homing. In this
scenario, care must be taken in order to prevent from forwarding loop
as well as packets duplication.
4.4. Intra-Area Multicast Routing
An IP multicast distribution tree within an IGP area is in effect a
sub-graph of the IGP's area topology graph (see Section 2). All
routers that receive advertisement of IP multicast addresses in the
IGP area must build the multicast distribution tree for each IP
multicast address group. The construction of the distribution is
based on the IGP's Link State Database, which is currently used for
routing IP unicast packets. All routers in an IGP area must
calculate and construct the intra-area distribution tree using IGP's
Link State Database with the same algorithm, so that a pruned tree
can be constructed for the distribution tree. Care must be taken to
avoid forwarding loops and routing optimization is highly desired.
Note the algorithm for constructing an IP multicast distribution
tree, and other related functions are outside of any specific IGP,
i.e., there requires no change in IGP.
The algorithm and related details for intra-area multicast routing is
specified in a separate document.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
4.5. Inter-Area Multicast Routing
In inter-area unicast routing, an IP packet from one IGP area
forwarded to another area is sent to an area border node (ABR for
OSPF) or L2 router (for IS-IS) first, which then forwards the packet
to the neighboring area. This is also the scenario for inter-area
multicast routing, and as such, an ABR/L2-Router functions as a
Transit Router, or a branch node in the multicast distribution tree.
Note that IGP's Link State Database is per area, so the multicast
distribution tree constructed on routers in the transmitting area in
generally terminated at the ABR/L2-Router due to lack of routing
information. The ABR/L2-Router in question would require extending
the distribution in the receiving area based on the separate Link
State Database.
The procedure and related details for inter-area multicast routing is
specified in a separate document.
4.5.1. Behavior of IS-IS L2 Router
For IS-IS, the area boundary is on the link, and so the L2 router in
the receiving area extends the distribution tree for that area.
To support inter-area multicast routing, an IS-IS L2 Router is
required to propagate IP multicast addresses received in one area to
all L2 Routers in other areas it is connected. This behavior is
similar to the advertisement of IS-IS Reachability Information PDU.
4.5.2. Behavior of OSPF ABR
For OSPF, the area boundary is on the ABR. When an ABR attached to
both transmitting area and receiving area, it extends the
distribution tree in the receiving area.
To support inter-area multicast routing, an OSPF ABR is required to
propagate IP multicast addresses received in one area to all other
areas it attached. This behavior is similar to the advertisement of
OSPF Summary LSA.
4.6. Heterogeneous Environment
To deploy the IP multicast routing using IGP as described in this
document, it requires all routers in the IGP area implement the
following:
o Implement the extension in IS-IS (documented separately) and in
OSPF (documented separately) for advertising multicast addresses.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
o Support the new functions as described in Section 4.
In a heterogeneous network environment, i.e., not all routers in an
IGP area implement the above extensions. A multicast distribution
tree within an area does not allow to be segregated, but tunneling
mechanism can be used to support multicast routing here. When there
are routers that would be required to be on a multicast distribution
tree but not supporting the required extensions, a tunnel is
constructed connecting two adjacent routers capable of routing
multicast and across one or more not-capable routers, such that the
tunnel becomes a single branch on the distribution tree. An IP
multicast packet sent from a tunnel end to the other is encapsulated
in an IP packet with the sending router's IP address as the source
address and the receiving router's IP address as the destination
address.
4.7. TE (Traffic Engineering) Support
The existing IP multicast routing practice (e.g., PIM) does not
consider route constraints (e.g., link bandwidth). Both OSPF and IS-
IS support traffic engineering based unicast routing by constructing
and maintaining a TE Database. Like Link State Database, the TE
Database can also be used to support IP multicast routing when one or
more path constraints is under consideration.
Note to perform TE based multicast routing using IGP, routers must
support TE extensions, and otherwise, there requires no other change
in the IGP.
4.8. Applications with Overlay Model
Using a single IGP as a uniformed routing engine for both IP unicast
and multicast routing enables a simple but highly efficient IP
networking fabric that can serve varies applications above it as a
overlay model. These applications are viewed as at the service
level, completely decoupled with the underneath IP networking fabric
however enjoy both IP unicast and multicast transportation
infrastructure. In the multicast perspective, the applications can
be IP based, but can also be level-2 based such as Ethernet.
4.9. IPv4 and IPv6
The architecture as outlined in this document supports IPv4 multicast
routing in IPv4 networks, and also IPv6 multicast routing in IPv6
networks.
With mechanisms such as tunneling or address translation, the same
architecture can also support IPv4 multicast routing in IPv6
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
networks, and IPv6 multicast routing in IPv4 networks. The details
are specified in other document.
5. Acknowledgement
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, December 1999.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October
2008.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC
5329, September 2008.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, August 2014.
[RFC7365] Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y.
Rekhter, "Framework for Data Center (DC) Network
Virtualization", RFC 7365, October 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Lucy Yong
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
Austin, TX
USA
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Dean Cheng
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95135
USA
Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com
Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
101 Software Avenue
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
Donald Eastlake
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Andrew Qu
MediaTek
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: laodulaodu@gmail.com
Jon Hudson
Brocade
130 Holger Way
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri
Ericsson Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: uma.chunduri@ericsson.com
Yong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 15]