l3vpn Working Group T. Morin, Ed.
Internet-Draft France Telecom R&D
Expires: November 30, 2006 May 29, 2006
Requirements for Multicast in L3 Provider-Provisioned VPNs
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08
Status of this Memo
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document presents a set of functional requirements for network
solutions that allow the deployment of IP multicast within L3
Provider Provisioned virtual private networks (PPVPNs). It specifies
requirements both from the end user and service provider standpoints.
It is intended that potential solutions specifying the support of IP
multicast within such VPNs will use these requirements as guidelines.
Working group
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
This document is a product of the IETF's Layer 3 Virtual Private
Network (l3vpn) working group. Comments should be addressed to WG's
mailing list at <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>. The charter for l3vpn may
be found at <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/l3vpn-charter.html>
Contributors
Main contributors to this document are listed below, in alphabetical
order:
o Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom
3, avenue Francois Chateau
CS 36901 35069 RENNES Cedex, France
Email: christian.jacquenet@francetelecom.com
o Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
o Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom R & D
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
o Nicolai Leymann
T-Systems International GmbH
Engineering Networks, Products & Services
Goslarer Ufer 3510589 Berlin, Germany
Email: nicolai.leymann@t-systems.com
o Renaud Moignard
France Telecom R & D
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
Email: renaud.moignard@francetelecom.com
o Thomas Morin
France Telecom R & D
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
Email: thomas.morin@francetelecom.com
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Scaling vs. Optimizing Resource Utilization . . . . . . . 9
4. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1. Live content broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2. Symmetric applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.3. Data distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.4. Generic multicast VPN offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Scalability orders of magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Number of VPNs with multicast enabled . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Number of multicast VPNs per PE . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.3. Number of CEs per multicast VPN per PE . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.4. PEs per multicast VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.5. PEs with multicast VRFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.6. Number of streams sourced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Requirements for supporting IP multicast within L3 PPVPNs . . 15
5.1. End user/customer standpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.1. Service definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.2. CE-PE Multicast routing and group management
protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.3. Quality of Service (QoS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.4. Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.5. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.6. Extranet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.7. Internet Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.8. Carrier's carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.9. Multi-homing, load balancing and resiliency . . . . . 20
5.1.10. RP Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.11. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.12. Minimum MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Service provider standpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1. General requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.3. Resource optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2.4. Tunneling Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.5. Control mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.6. Support of Inter-AS, inter-provider deployments . . . 27
5.2.7. Quality of Service Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.8. Infrastructure security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.9. Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5.2.10. Operation, Administration and Maintenance . . . . . . 29
5.2.11. Compatibility and migration issues . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.12. Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.1. Changes between -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.2. Changes between -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.3. Changes between -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.4. Changes between -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.5. Changes between -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.6. Changes between -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.7. Changes between -06 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 44
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
1. Introduction
VPN services satisfying the requirements defined in [RFC4031] are now
being offered by many service providers throughout the world. VPN
services are popular because customers need not be aware of the VPN
technologies deployed in the provider network. They scale well for
the following reasons:
o because P routers (Provider Routers) need not be aware of VPN
service details
o because the addition of a new VPN member requires only limited
configuration effort
There is also a growing need for support of IP multicast-based
services. Efforts to provide efficient IP multicast routing
protocols and multicast group management have been done in
standardization bodies which has led, in particular, to the
definition of the PIM and IGMP protocols.
However, multicast traffic is not natively supported within existing
L3 PPVPN solutions. Deploying multicast over an L3VPN today, with
only currently standardized solutions, requires designing customized
solutions which will be inherently limited in terms of scalability,
operational efficiency and bandwidth usage.
This document complements the generic L3VPN requirements [RFC4031]
document, by specifying additional requirements specific to the
deployment within PPVPNs of services based on IP multicast. It
clarifies the needs of both VPN clients and providers and formulates
the problems that should be addressed by technical solutions with the
key objective being to remain solution agnostic. There is no intent
to either specify solution-specific details in this document or
application-specific requirements. Also this document does NOT aim
at expressing multicast-related requirements that are not specific to
L3 PPVPNs.
It is expected that solutions that specify procedures and protocol
extensions for multicast in L3 PPVPNs SHOULD satisfy these
requirements.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
Although the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology
defined in [RFC4031], [RFC4364], [PIM-SM], PIM-SSM [I-D.ietf-ssm-
arch] the following glossary of terms may be worthwhile.
Moreover we also propose here generic terms for concepts that
naturally appear when multicast in VPNs is discussed.
ASM:
Any Source Multicast. One of the two multicast service models, in
which a terminal subscribes to a multicast group to receive data
sent to the group by any source.
Multicast-enabled VPN, or multicast VPN:
a VPN which supports IP multicast capabilities, i.e. for which
some PE devices (if not all) are multicast-enabled and whose core
architecture supports multicast VPN routing and forwarding
PPVPN:
Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Network
PE/CE:
"Provider Edge", "Customer Edge" (as defined in [RFC4026]). As
suggested in [RFC4026], we will use these notations to refer to
the equipments/routers/devices themselves. Thus, "PE" will refer
to the router on the provider's edge, which faces the "CE", the
router on the customer's edge.
VRF or VR:
By this phrase, we refer to the entity defined in a PE dedicated
to a specific VPN instance. "VRF" refers to "VPN Routing and
Forwarding table" as defined in [RFC4364], and "VR" to "Virtual
Router" as defined in [VRs] terminology.
MD Tunnel:
Multicast Distribution Tunnel, the means by which the customer's
multicast traffic will be transported across the SP network. This
is meant in a generic way: such tunnels can be either point-to-
point or point-to-multipoint. Although this definition may seem
to assume that distribution tunnels are unidirectional, the
wording also encompasses bi-directional tunnels.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
G:
Denotes a multicast group
Multicast channel:
In the multicast SSM model, "multicast channel" designate traffic
from a specific source S to a multicast group G. Also denominated
as (S,G).
S:
Denotes a multicast source
SP:
Service provider
SSM:
Source Specific Multicast. One of the two multicast service
models, where a terminal subscribes to a multicast group to
receive data sent to the group by a specific source.
RP:
Rendez-vous point ([PIM-SM])
P2MP, MP2MP: Designate "Point to multipoint" and "Multipoint to
multipoint" replication trees.
L3VPN, VPN:
Throughout this document, "L3VPN" or even just "VPN" will refer to
"Provider-Provisioned Layer 3 Virtual Private Network" (PP
L3VPNs), and will be preferred for readability.
Please refer to [RFC4026] for details about terminology specifically
relevant to VPN aspects, and to [RFC2432] for multicast performance
or QoS related terms.
2.2. Conventions
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].
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
3. Problem Statement
3.1. Motivations
More and more L3VPN customers use IP multicast services within their
private infrastructures. Naturally, they want to extend these
multicast services to remote sites that are connected via a VPN.
For instance, the customer could be a national TV channel with
several geographical locations that wants to broadcast a TV program
from a central point to several regional locations within its VPN.
A solution to support multicast traffic could consist of point-to-
point tunnels across the provider network and requires the PEs
(Provider's Edge routers) to replicate traffic. This would obviously
be sub-optimal as it would place the replication burden on the PE and
hence would have very poor scaling characteristics. It would also
probably waste bandwidth and control plane resources in the
provider's network.
Thus, to provide multicast services for L3VPN networks in an
efficient manner (that is, with a scalable impact on signaling and
protocol state as well as bandwidth usage), in a large scale
environment, new mechanisms are required to enhance existing L3VPN
solutions for proper support of multicast-based services.
3.2. General Requirements
This document sets out requirements for L3 provider-provisioned VPN
solutions designed to carry customers' multicast traffic. The main
requirement is that a solution SHOULD first satisfy the requirements
documented in [RFC4031]: as far as possible, a multicast service
should have the same characteristics as the unicast equivalent,
including the same simplicity (technology unaware), the same quality
of service (if any), the same management (e.g. monitoring of
performances), etc.
Moreover, it also has to be clear that a multicast VPN solution MUST
interoperate seamlessly with current unicast VPN solutions. It would
also make sense that multicast VPN solutions define themselves as
extensions to existing L3 provider-provisioned VPN solutions (such as
for instance, [RFC4364] or [VRs]) and retain consistency with those,
although this is not a core requirement.
The requirements in this document are equally applicable to IPv4 and
IPv6, for both customer and provider related matters.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
3.3. Scaling vs. Optimizing Resource Utilization
When transporting multicast VPN traffic over a service provider
network, there intrinsically is tension between scalability and
resource optimization, since the latter is likely to require the
maintenance of control plane states related to replication trees in
the core network.
Consequently, any deployment will require a trade-off to be made and
this document will express some requirements related to this trade-
off.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
4. Use cases
The goal of this section is to highlight how different applications
and network contexts may have a different impact on how a multicast
VPN solution is designed, deployed and tuned. For this purpose we
describe some typical use case scenarios and express expectations in
terms of deployment orders of magnitude.
Most of the content of these sections originates from a survey done
in summer 2005, among institutions and providers that expect to
deploy such solutions. The full survey text, and raw results (13
responses) were published separately and we only present here the
most relevant facts and expectations that the survey exposed.
For scalability figures, we considered that it was relevant to
highlight the highest expectations, those that are expected to have
the greatest impact on solution design ; for balance, we do also
mention cases where such high expectations were expressed in only a
few answers.
4.1. Scenarios
We don't provide here an exhaustive set of scenarios that a multicast
VPN solution is expected to support - no solution should restrict the
scope of multicast applications and deployments that can be done over
a multicast VPN.
Hence, we only give here a short list of scenarios that are expected
to have a large impact on the design of a multicast VPN solution.
4.1.1. Live content broadcast
Under this label, we group all applications that distribute content
(audio, video, or other content) with the property that this content
is expected to be consulted at once ("live") by the receiver.
Typical applications are broadcast TV, production studios
connectivity, distribution of market data feeds.
The characteristics of such applications are the following:
o one or few sources to many receivers
o sources are often in known locations, receivers are in less
predictable locations (this latter point may depend on
applications)
o in some cases, it is expected that the regularity of audience
patterns may help improve how the bandwidth/state trade-off is
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
handled
o the number of streams can be as high as hundreds, or even
thousands of streams
o bandwidth will depend on the application, but may vary between a
few tens/hundreds of Kb/s (e.g audio or low quality video media)
and tens of Mb/s (high quality video), with some demanding
professional applications requiring as much as hundreds of Mb/s.
o QoS requirements include, in many cases, a low multicast group
join delay
o QoS of these applications is likely to be impacted by packet loss
(some applications may be robust to low packet loss), and to have
low robustness against jitter
o delay sensitivity will depend on the application: some
applications are not so delay sensitive (e.g. broadcast TV),
whereas others may require very low delay (professional studio
applications)
o some of these applications may involve rapid changes in customer
multicast memberships as seen by the PE, but this will depend on
audience patterns and on the number of provider equipments
deployed close to VPN customers
4.1.2. Symmetric applications
Some use cases exposed by the survey can be grouped under this label,
and include many-to-many applications such as conferencing, server
clusters monitoring.
They are characterized by the relatively high number of streams that
they can produce, which has a direct impact on scalability
expectations.
A sub-case of this scenario is the case of symmetric applications
with small groups, when the number of receivers is low compared to
the number of sites in the VPNs (e.g.: video conferencing and
e-learning applications).
This latter case is expected to be an important input to solution
design, since it may significantly impact how the bandwidth/state is
managed.
Because of:
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
o small groups, and low predictability of the location of
participants ("sparse groups")
o possibly significantly high bandwidth (a few Mb/s per participant)
...optimizing bandwidth may require introducing dedicated states in
the core network (typically as much as the number of groups).
Lastly, some of these applications may involve realtime interactions,
and will be highly sensitive to packet loss, jitter and delay.
4.1.3. Data distribution
Some applications which are expected to be deployed on multicast VPNs
are non-realtime applications aimed at distributing data from few
sources to many receivers.
Such applications may be considered to have lower expectations than
their counterparts proposed in this document, since they would not
necessarily involve more data streams and are more likely to adapt to
the available bandwidth and to be robust to packet loss, jitter and
delay.
One important property is that such applications may involve higher
bandwidths (hundreds of Mb/s).
4.1.4. Generic multicast VPN offer
This ISP scenario is a deployment scenario where IP-Multicast
connectivity is proposed for every VPN: if a customer requests a VPN,
then this VPN will support IP-Multicast by default. In this case the
number of multicast VPNs equals the number of VPNs. This implies a
quite important scalability requirement (e.g. hundreds of PEs,
hundreds of VPNs per PE, with a potential increase by one order of
magnitude in the future).
The per mVPN traffic behavior is not predictable because it's
completely up to the customer how the service is used. This results
in a traffic mix of the scenarios mentioned in section 4.1. QoS
requirements are similar to typical unicast scenarios, with the need
for different classes. Also in such a context, a reasonably large
range of protocols should be made available to the customer for use
at the PE-CE level.
Also, in such a scenario, customers may want to deploy multicast
connectivity between two or more multicast VPNs as well as access to
Internet Multicast.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
4.2. Scalability orders of magnitude
This section proposes orders of magnitude for different scalability
metrics relevant for multicast VPN issues. It should be noted that
the scalability figures proposed here relate to scalability
expectations of future deployments of multicast VPN solutions, as the
authors chose to not restrict the scope to only currently known
deployments.
4.2.1. Number of VPNs with multicast enabled
From the survey results, we see a broad range of expectations. There
are extreme answers: from 5 VPNs (1 answer) to 10k VPNs (1 answer),
but more typical answers are split between the low range -tens of
VPNs- (7 answers) or in the higher range of hundreds or thousands of
VPNs (2 + 4 answers).
A solution SHOULD support a number of multicast VPNs ranging from one
to several thousands.
A solution SHOULD NOT limit the proportion of multicast VPNs among
all (unicast) VPNs.
4.2.2. Number of multicast VPNs per PE
The majority of survey answers express a number of multicast VPNs per
PE of around tens (8 responses between 5 and 50); a significant
number of them (4) expect deployments with hundreds or thousands (1
response) of multicast VPNs per PE.
A solution SHOULD support a number of multicast VPNs per PE of
several hundreds, and may have to scale up to thousands of VPNs per
PE.
4.2.3. Number of CEs per multicast VPN per PE
Survey responses span from 1 to 2000 CEs per multicast VPN per PE.
Most typical responses are between tens (6 answers) and hundreds (4
responses).
A solution SHOULD support a number of CEs per multicast VPN per PE
going up to several hundreds (and may target the support of thousands
of CEs).
4.2.4. PEs per multicast VPN
People who answered the survey typically expect deployments with
number of PEs per multicast VPN in the range of hundreds of PEs (6
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
responses) or tens of PEs (4 responses). Two responses were in the
range of thousands (one mentioned a 10k figure).
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD support several hundreds of PEs per
multicast VPN, and MAY usefully scale up to thousands.
4.2.4.1. ... with sources
The number of PEs, per VPN, that would be connected to sources, seems
to be significantly lower than the number of PEs per VPN. This is
obviously related to the fact that many respondents mentioned
deployments related to content broadcast applications (one to many).
Typical numbers are of tens of source-connected-PEs (6 responses), or
hundreds (4 responses). One respondent expected a higher number of
several thousands.
A solution SHOULD support hundreds of source-connected-PEs per VPN,
and some deployment scenarios involving many-to-many applications,
may require supporting a number of source-connected-PEs equal to the
number of PEs (hundreds or thousands).
4.2.4.2. ... with receivers
The survey showed that the number of PEs with receivers is expected
to be of the same order of magnitude as the number of PEs in a
multicast VPN. This is consistent with the intrinsic nature of most
multicast applications, which have few source only participants.
4.2.5. PEs with multicast VRFs
A solution SHOULD scale up to thousands of PEs having multicast
service enabled.
4.2.6. Number of streams sourced
Survey responses led us to retain the following orders of magnitude
for the number of streams that a solution SHOULD support:
per VPN: hundreds or thousands of streams
per PE: hundreds of streams
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5. Requirements for supporting IP multicast within L3 PPVPNs
Again, the aim of this document is not to specify solutions but to
give requirements for supporting IP multicast within L3 PPVPNs.
In order to list these requirements we have taken the standpoint of
two different important entities: the end user (the customer using
the VPN) and the service provider.
In the rest of the document, by "a solution" or "a multicast VPN
solution", we mean a solution that allows multicast in an L3
provider-provisioned VPN, and which addresses the requirements listed
in this document.
5.1. End user/customer standpoint
5.1.1. Service definition
As for unicast, the multicast service MUST be provider provisioned
and SHALL NOT require customer devices (CEs) to support any extra
feature compared to those required for multicast in a non-VPN
context. Enabling a VPN for multicast support SHOULD be possible
with no (or very limited impact) on existing multicast protocols
possibly already deployed on the CE devices.
5.1.2. CE-PE Multicast routing and group management protocols
Consequently to Section 5.1.1, multicast-related protocol exchanges
between a CE and its directly connected PE SHOULD happen via existing
multicast protocols.
Such protocols include: PIM-SM [I-D.ietf-pim-sm-v2-new],
bidirectional-PIM [I-D.ietf-pim-bidir], PIM-DM [RFC3973], and IGMPv3
[RFC3376] (this version implicitly supports hosts that only
implements IGMPv1 [RFC1112] or IGMPv2 [RFC2236]).
Among those protocols, the support of PIM-SM (version 2, revised,
which includes SSM model) and either IGMP v.3 (for IPv4 solutions)
and / or MLDv.2 [RFC3810] (for IPv6 solutions) are REQUIRED. Bidir-
PIM Support at the PE-CE interface is RECOMMENDED. And considering
deployments, PIM-DM is considered as OPTIONAL.
When a multicast VPN solution is built on a VPN solution supporting
IPv6 unicast, it MUST also support v6 variants of the above
protocols, including MLD v.2, and PIM-SM IPv6 specific procedures.
For a multicast VPN solution built on a unicast VPN solution
supporting only IPv4, it is RECOMMENDED that the design favors the
definition of procedures and encodings that will provide an easy
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
adaptation to IPv6.
5.1.3. Quality of Service (QoS)
Firstly, general considerations regarding QoS in L3VPNs expressed in
section 5.5 of [RFC4031] are also relevant to this section.
QoS is measured in terms of delay, jitter, packet loss, and
availability. These metrics are already defined for the current
unicast PPVPN services, and are included in Service Level
Agreements(SLA). In some cases, the agreed SLA may be different
between unicast and multicast, and that will require differentiation
mechanisms in order to monitor both SLAs.
The level of availability for the multicast service SHOULD be on par
with what exists for unicast traffic. For instance same traffic
protection mechanisms SHOULD be available for customer multicast
traffic when it is carried over the service provider's network.
A multicast VPN solution SHALL allow a service provider to define at
least the same level of quality of service as exists for unicast, and
as exists for multicast in a non-VPN context. From this perspective,
the deployment of multicast-based services within an L3VPN
environment SHALL benefit from DiffServ [RFC2475] mechanisms that
include multicast traffic identification, classification and marking
capabilities, as well as multicast traffic policing, scheduling and
conditioning capabilities. Such capabilities MUST therefore be
supported by any participating device in the establishment and the
maintenance of the multicast distribution tunnel within the VPN.
As multicast is often used to deliver high quality services such as
TV broadcast, a multicast VPN solution MAY provide additional
features to support high QoS such as bandwidth reservation and
admission control.
Also, considering that multicast reception is receiver-triggered,
group join delay (as defined in [RFC2432]) is also considered one
important QoS parameter. It is thus RECOMMENDED that a multicast VPN
solution be designed appropriately in this regard.
The group leave delay (as defined in [RFC2432]) may also be important
on the CE-PE link for some usage scenarios: in cases where the
typical bandwidth of multicast streams is close to the bandwidth of a
PE-CE link, it will be important to have the ability to stop the
emission of a stream on the PE-CE link as soon as it stops being
requested by the CE, to allow for fast switching between two
different high throughput multicast streams. This implies that it
SHOULD be possible to tune the multicast routing or group management
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
protocols (e.g. IGMP/MLD or PIM) used on the PE-CE adjacency to
reduce the group leave delay to the minimum.
Lastly, a multicast VPN solution SHOULD as much as possible ensure
that client multicast traffic packets are neither lost nor
duplicated, even when changes occur in the way a client multicast
data stream is carried over the provider network. Packet loss issues
have also to be considered when a new source starts to send traffic
to a group: any receiver interested in receiving such traffic SHOULD
be serviced accordingly.
5.1.4. Operations and Management
The requirements and definitions for operations and management of
L3VPNs that are defined in [RFC4176] equally apply to multicast, and
are not extensively repeated in this document. This sub-section
mention most important guidelines and details points of particular
relevance in the context of multicast in L3VPNs.
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD allow a multicast VPN customer to
manage the capabilities and characteristics of their multicast VPN
services.
A multicast VPN solution MUST support SLA monitoring capabilities,
which SHOULD rely upon techniques similar to those used for the
unicast service for the same monitoring purposes. Multicast SLA-
related metrics SHOULD be available through similar means that the
ones already used for unicast-related monitoring, such as for
instance SNMP[RFC1441] or IPFIX[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol].
Multicast specific characteristics that may be monitored are, for
instance, multicast statistics per stream, end-to-end delay, group
join/leave delay (time to start/stop receiving a multicast group
traffic across the VPN, as defined in [RFC2432], Section 3).
The monitoring of multicast specific parameters and statistics MUST
include multicast traffic statistics: total/incoming/outgoing/dropped
traffic, by period of time ; and MAY include IP Performance Metrics
related information (IPPM, [RFC2330]) that is relevant to the
multicast traffic usage: such information includes the one-way packet
delay, the inter-packet delay variation, etc.
A generic discussion of SLAs is provided in [RFC3809].
Apart from statistics on multicast traffic, customers of a multicast
VPN will need information concerning the status of their multicast
resource usage (multicast routing states and bandwidth). Indeed, as
mentioned in Section 5.2.5, for scalability purposes, a service
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
provider may limit the number (and/or throughput) of multicast
streams that are received /sent to/from a client site. In such a
case, a multicast VPN solution SHOULD allow customers to find out
their current resource usage (multicast routing states and
throughput), and to receive some kind of feedback if their usage
exceeds the agreed bounds. Whether this issue will be better handled
at the protocol level at the PE-CE interface or at the Service
Management Level interface [RFC4176], is left for further discussion.
5.1.5. Security Requirements
Security is a key point for a customer who uses subscribes to a VPN
service. For instance, the [RFC4364] model offers some guarantees
concerning the security level of data transmission within the VPN.
A multicast VPN solution MUST provide an architecture with the same
level of security for both unicast and multicast traffic.
Moreover, the activation of multicast features SHOULD be possible:
o per VRF / per VR
o per CE interface (when multiple CEs of a VPN are connected to a
common VRF/VR)
o per multicast group and/or per channel
o with a distinction between multicast reception and emission
A multicast VPN solution may choose to make the optimality/
scalability trade-off stated in Section 3.3 by sometimes distributing
multicast traffic of a client group to a larger set of PE routers
that may include PEs which are not part of the VPN. From a security
standpoint, this may be a problem for some VPN customers, thus a
multicast VPN solution using such a scheme MAY offer ways to avoid
this for specific customers (and/or specific customer multicast
streams).
5.1.6. Extranet
In current PP L3VPN models, a customer site may be setup to be part
of multiple VPNs and this should still be possible when a VPN is
multicast-enabled. In practice it means that a VRF or VR can be part
of more than one VPN.
A multicast VPN solution MUST support such deployments.
For instance, it must be possible to configure a VRF so that an
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
enterprise site participating in a BGP/MPLS multicast-enabled VPN and
connected to that VRF, can receive a multicast stream from, [or
originate a multicast stream towards], another VPN that would be
associated to that VRF.
More precisely this means that a multicast VPN solution MUST offer
means so that:
o receivers behind attached CEs can receive multicast traffic
sourced in any of the VPNs (if security policy permits)
o sources behind attached CEs can reach multicast traffic receivers
located in any of the VPNs
o multicast can be independently enabled for the different VPNs (and
multicast reception and emission can also be independently
enabled)
Moreover, a solution MUST allow service providers to control an
extranet's multicast connectivity independently from the extranet's
unicast connectivity. More specifically:
o enabling unicast connectivity to another VPN MUST be possible
without activating multicast connectivity with this VPN
o enabling multicast connectivity with another VPN SHOULD NOT
require more than the strict minimal unicast routing : sending
multicast to a VPN does SHOULD NOT require having unicast routes
to this VPN, receiving multicast from a VPN SHOULD be possible
with nothing more than unicast routes to the relevant multicast
sources of this VPN
o when unicast routes from another VPN are imported into a VR/VRF,
for multicast RPF resolution, this SHOULD be possible without
making those routes available for unicast routing
Proper support for this feature SHOULD NOT require replicating
multicast traffic on a PE-CE link, whether it is a physical or
logical link.
5.1.7. Internet Multicast
Connectivity with Internet Multicast is a particular case of the
previous section, where sites attached to a VR/VRF would need to
receive/send multicast traffic from/to the Internet.
This should be considered OPTIONAL given the additional
considerations, such as security, needed to fulfill the requirements
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
for providing Internet Multicast.
5.1.8. Carrier's carrier
Many L3 PPVPN solutions, such as [RFC4364] and [VRs] define the
"Carrier's Carrier" model, where a "carrier's carrier" service
provider supports one or more customer ISP, or "sub-carriers". A
multicast VPN solution SHOULD support the carrier's carrier model in
a scalable and efficient manner.
Ideally the range of tunneling protocols available for the sub-
carrier ISP should be the same as those available for the carrier's
carrier ISP. This implies that the protocols that may be used at the
PE-CE level SHOULD NOT be restricted to protocols required as per
Section 5.1.2 and SHOULD include some of the protocols listed in
Section 5.2.4, such as for instance P2MP MPLS signaling protocols.
In the context of MPLS-based L3VPN deployments, such as BGP/MPLS VPNs
[RFC4364], this means that MPLS label distribution SHOULD happen at
the PE-CE level, giving the ability to the sub-carrier to use
multipoint LSPs as a tunneling mechanism.
5.1.9. Multi-homing, load balancing and resiliency
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD be compatible with current solutions
that aim at improving the service robustness for customers such as
multi-homing, CE-PE link load balancing and fail-over. A multicast
VPN solution SHOULD also be able to offer those same features for
multicast traffic.
Any solution SHOULD support redundant topology of CE-PE links. It
SHOULD minimize multicast traffic disruption and fail-over.
5.1.10. RP Engineering
When PIM-SM (or bidir-PIM) is used in ASM mode on the VPN customer
side, the RP function (or RP-address in the case of bidir-PIM) has to
be associated to a node running PIM, and configured on this node.
5.1.10.1. RP Outsourcing
In the case of PIM-SM in ASM mode, engineering of the RP function
requires the deployment of specific protocols and associated
configurations. Some service provider may offer to manage customer's
multicast protocol operation on their behalf. This implies that it
is necessary to consider cases where the customer's RPs are out-
sourced (e.g., on PEs). Consequently, a VPN solution MAY support the
hosting of the RP function in a VR or VRF.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5.1.10.2. RP Availability
Availability of the RP function (or address) is required for proper
operation of PIM-SM (ASM mode) and bidir-PIM. Loss of connectivity
to the RP from a receiver or source will impact the multicast
service. For this reason different mechanisms exist, such as BSR
[I-D.ietf-pim-sm-bsr] or anycast-RP (MSDP based [RFC3446] or PIM
based [I-D.ietf-pim-anycast-rp]).
These protocols and procedures SHOULD work transparently through a
multicast VPN, and MAY, if relevant, be implemented in a VRF/VR.
Moreover, a multicast VPN solution MAY improve the robustness of the
ASM multicast service regarding loss of connectivity to the RP, by
providing specific features that help :
a) maintain ASM multicast service among all the sites within an MVPN
that maintain connectivity among themselves, even when the site(s)
hosting the RP lose their connectivity to the MVPN
b) maintain ASM multicast service within any site that loses
connectivity to the service provider
5.1.10.3. RP Location
In the case of PIM-SM, when a source starts to emit traffic toward a
group (in ASM mode), if sources and receivers are located in VPN
sites that are different than that of the RP, then traffic may
transiently flow twice through the SP network and the CE-PE link of
the RP (from source to RP, and then from RP to receivers). This
traffic peak, even short, may not be convenient depending on the
traffic and link bandwidth.
Thus, a VPN solution MAY provide features that solve or help mitigate
this potential issue.
5.1.11. Addressing
A multicast provider-provisioned L3VPN SHOULD NOT impose restrictions
on multicast group addresses used by VPN customers.
In particular, like unicast traffic, an overlap of multicast group
address sets used by different VPN customers MUST be supported.
The use of globally unique means of multicast-based service
identification at the scale of the domain where such services are
provided SHOULD be recommended. For IPv4 multicast, this implies the
use of the multicast administratively scoped range, (239/8 as defined
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
by [RFC2365]) for services which are to be used only inside the VPN,
and of either SSM-range addresses (232/8 as defined by [I-D.ietf-ssm-
arch]) or globally assigned group addresses (e.g. GLOP [RFC3180],
233/8) for services for which traffic may be transmitted outside the
VPN .
5.1.12. Minimum MTU
For customers, it is often a serious issue whether transmitted
packets will be fragmented or not. In particular, some multicast
applications might have different requirements than those that make
use of unicast, and they may expect services that guarantee available
packet length not to be fragmented.
Therefore, a multicast VPN solution SHOULD let customers' devices be
free of any fragmentation or reassembly activity.
A committed minimum path MTU size SHOULD be provided to customers.
Moreover, since Ethernet LAN segments are often located at first and
last hops, a minimum 1500 bytes IP MTU SHOULD be provided.
It SHOULD also be compatible with Path MTU discovery mechanisms, such
as those defined in [RFC1191] or [RFC4459].
5.2. Service provider standpoint
Note: please remember that, to avoid repetition and confusion with
terms used in solution specifications, we introduced in Section 2.1
the term MDTunnel (for Multicast Distribution Tunnel), which
designates the data plane means used by the service provider to
forward customer multicast traffic over the core network.
5.2.1. General requirement
The deployment of a multicast VPN solution SHOULD be possible with no
(or very limited) impact on existing deployments of standardized
multicast related protocols on P and PE routers.
5.2.2. Scalability
Some currently standardized and deployed L3VPN solutions have the
major advantage of being scalable in the core regarding the number of
customers and the number of customer routes. For instance, in the
[RFC4364] and [VRs] [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr] models, a P router sees a
number of MPLS tunnels that is only linked to the number of PEs and
not to the number of VPNs, or customers' sites.
As far as possible, this independence in the core, with respect to
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
the number of customers and to customer activity, is recommended.
Yet, it is recognized that in our context scalability and resource
usage optimality are competing goals, so this requirement may be
reduced to giving the possibility of bounding the quantity of states
that the service provider needs to maintain in the core for
MDTunnels, with a bound being independent of the multicast activity
of VPN customers.
It is expected that multicast VPN solutions will use some kind of
point-to-multipoint technology to efficiently carry multicast VPN
traffic, and because such technologies require maintaining state
information, this will use resources in the control plane of P and PE
routers (memory and processing, and possibly address space).
Scalability is a key requirement for multicast VPN solutions.
Solutions MUST be designed to scale well with an increase in the
number of any of the following:
o the number of PEs
o the number of customers VPNs (total and per PE)
o the number of PEs and sites in any VPN
o the number of client multicast channels (groups or source-groups)
Please consult section 4.2 for typical orders of magnitude up to
which a multicast VPN solution is expected to scale
Scalability of both performance and operation MUST be considered.
Key considerations SHOULD include:
o the processing resources required by the control plane
(neighborhood or session maintenance messages, keep-alives,
timers, etc.)
o the memory resources needed for the control plane
o the amount of protocol information transmitted to manage a
multicast VPN (e.g. signaling throughput)
o the amount of control plane processing required on PE and P
routers to add or remove a customer site (or a customer from a
multicast session)
o the number of multicast IP addresses used (if IP multicast in ASM
mode is proposed as a multicast distribution tunnel)
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
o other particular elements inherent to each solution that impacts
scalability (e.g., if a solution uses some distribution tree
inside the core, topology of the tree and number of leaf nodes may
be some of them)
It is expected that the applicability of each solution will be
evaluated with regards to the aforementioned scalability criteria.
These considerations naturally lead us to believe that proposed
solutions SHOULD offer the possibility of sharing such resources
between different multicast streams (between different VPNs, between
different multicast streams of the same or of different VPNs). This
means for instance, if MDTunnels are trees, being able to share an
MDTunnel between several customers.
Those scalability issues are expected to be more significant on P
routers, but a multicast VPN solution SHOULD address both P and PE
routers as far as scalability is concerned.
5.2.3. Resource optimization
5.2.3.1. General goals
One of the aims of the use of multicast instead of unicast is
resource optimization in the network.
The two obvious suboptimal behaviors that a multicast VPN solution
would want to avoid are needless duplication (when the same data
travels twice or more on a same link, e.g. when doing ingress PE
replication) and needless reception (e.g. a PE receiving traffic that
it does not need because there are no downstream receivers).
5.2.3.2. Trade-off and tuning
As previously stated in this document, designing a scalable solution
that makes an optimal use of resources is considered difficult. Thus
what is expected from a multicast VPN solution is that it addresses
the resource optimization issue while taking into account the fact
that some trade-off has to be made.
Moreover, it seems that a "one size fits all" trade-off probably does
not exist either. Thus a multicast VPN solution SHOULD offer service
providers appropriate configuration settings that let them tune the
trade-off according to their particular constraints (network
topology, platforms, customer applications, level of service offered
etc.).
As an illustration here are some example bounds of the trade-off
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
space:
Bandwidth optimization: setting up somehow optimal core MDTunnels
whose topology (PIM or P2MP LSP trees, etc.) precisely follows
customer's multicast routing changes. This requires managing an
important quantity of states in the core, and also quick reactions
of the core to customer multicast routing changes. This approach
can be advantageous in terms of bandwidth, but it is bad in terms
of state management.
State optimization: setting up MDTunnels that aggregate multiple
customer multicast streams (all or some of them, across different
VPNs or not). This will have better scalability properties, but
at the expense of bandwidth since some MDTunnel leaves will very
likely receive traffic they don't need, and because increased
constraints will make it harder to find optimal MDTunnels.
5.2.3.3. Traffic engineering
If the VPN service provides traffic engineering features for the
connection used between PEs for unicast traffic in the VPN service,
the solution SHOULD provide equivalent features for multicast
traffic.
A solution SHOULD offer means to support key TE objectives as defined
in [RFC3272], for the multicast service.
A solution MAY also usefully support means to address multicast-
specific traffic engineering issues: it is known that bandwidth
resource optimization in the point-to-multipoint case is an NP-hard
problem, and that techniques used for unicast TE may not be
applicable to multicast traffic.
Also, it has been identified that managing the trade-off between
resource usage and scalability may incur uselessly sending traffic to
some PEs participating in a multicast VPN. For this reason, a
multicast VPN solution MAY permit that the bandwidth/state tuning
take into account the relative cost or availability of bandwidth
toward each PE.
5.2.4. Tunneling Requirements
5.2.4.1. Tunneling technologies
Following the principle of separation between the control plane and
the forwarding plane, a multicast VPN solution SHOULD be designed so
that control and forwarding planes are not interdependent: the
control plane SHALL NOT depend on which forwarding plane is used (and
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
vice versa), and the choice of forwarding plane SHOULD NOT be limited
by the design of the solution. The solution SHOULD also NOT be tied
to a specific tunneling technology.
In a multicast VPN solution extending a unicast L3 PPVPN solution,
consistency in the tunneling technology has to be favored: such a
solution SHOULD allow the use of the same tunneling technology for
multicast as for unicast. Deployment consistency, ease of operation
and potential migrations are the main motivations behind this
requirement.
For MDTunnels (multicast distribution tunnels, the means used to
carry VPNs' multicast traffic over the provider network), a solution
SHOULD be able to use a range of tunneling technologies, including
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint, such as GRE [RFC2784]
(including GRE in multicast IP trees), MPLS [RFC3031] (including P2P
or MP2P tunnels, and multipoint tunnels signaled with MPLS P2MP
extensions to RSVP [I-D.ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp] or LDP [I-D.ietf-
mpls-mp-ldp-reqs][I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp]), L2TP (including L2TP for
multicast [RFC4045]), IPsec [RFC4031], IP-in-IP [RFC2003], etc.
Naturally, it is RECOMMENDED that a solution is built so that it can
leverage the point to multipoint variants of these techniques, that
allow for packet replications to happen along a tree in the provider
core network, and may help improve bandwidth efficiency in a
multicast VPN context.
5.2.4.2. MTU and Fragmentation
A solution SHOULD support a method that provides the minimum MTU of
the MDTunnel (e.g., to discover MTU, to communicate MTU via
signaling, etc.) so that:
o fragmentation inside the MDTunnel does not happen, even when
allowed by the underlying tunneling technology
o proper troubleshooting can be done if packets that are too big for
the MDTunnel happen to be encapsulated in the MDTunnel
5.2.5. Control mechanisms
The solution MUST provide some mechanisms to control the sources
within a VPN. This control includes the number of sources that are
entitled to send traffic on the VPN, and/or the total bit rate of all
the sources.
At the reception level, the solution MUST also provide mechanisms to
control the number of multicast groups or channels VPN users are
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
entitled to subscribe to and/or the total bit rate represented by the
corresponding multicast traffic.
All these mechanisms MUST be configurable by the service provider in
order to control the amount of multicast traffic and state within a
VPN.
Moreover it MAY be desirable to be able to impose some bound on the
quantity of state used by a VPN in the core network for its multicast
traffic, whether on each P or PE router, or globally. The motivation
is that it may be needed to avoid out-of-resources situations (e.g.
out of memory to maintain PIM state if IP multicast is used in the
core for multicast VPN traffic, or out of memory to maintain RSVP
state if MPLS P2MP is used, etc.).
5.2.6. Support of Inter-AS, inter-provider deployments
A solution MUST support inter-AS multicast VPNs, and SHOULD support
inter-provider multicast VPNs. Considerations about coexistence with
unicast inter-AS VPN Options A, B and C (as described in section 10
of [RFC4364]) are strongly encouraged.
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD provide inter-AS mechanisms requiring
the least possible coordination between providers, and keep the need
for detailed knowledge of providers networks to a minimum - all this
being in comparison with corresponding unicast VPN options.
o Within each service provider the service provider SHOULD be able
on its own to pick the most appropriate tunneling mechanism to
carry (multicast) traffic among PEs (just like what is done today
for unicast)
o If a solution does require a single tunnel to span P routers in
multiple ASs, the solution SHOULD provide mechanisms to ensure
that the inter-provider co-ordination to setup such a tunnel is
minimized
Moreover such support SHOULD be possible without compromising other
requirements expressed in this requirement document, and SHALL NOT
incur penalties on scalability and bandwidth-related efficiency.
5.2.7. Quality of Service Differentiation
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD give a VPN service provider the
ability to offer, guarantee and enforce differentiated levels of QoS
for its different customers.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5.2.8. Infrastructure security
The solution shall provide the same level of security for the service
provider as what currently exist for unicast VPNs (for instance, as
developed in Security sections of [RFC4364] and
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr]). For instance, that means that traffic
segregation and intrinsic protection against DOS and DDOS attacks of
the BGP/MPLS VPN solution must be equally supported by the multicast
solution.
Moreover, since multicast traffic and routing are intrinsically
dynamic (receiver-initiated), some mechanism SHOULD be proposed so
that the frequency of changes in the way client traffic is carried
over the core can be bounded and not tightly coupled to dynamic
changes of multicast traffic in the customer network. For example,
multicast route dampening functions would be one possible mechanism.
Network devices that participate in the deployment and the
maintenance of a given L3VPN MAY represent a superset of the
participating devices that are also involved in the establishment and
the maintenance of the multicast distribution tunnels. As such the
activation of IP multicast capabilities within a VPN SHOULD be
device-specific, not only to make sure that only the relevant devices
will be multicast-enabled, but also to make sure that multicast
(routing) information will be disseminated to the multicast-enabled
devices only, hence limiting the risk of multicast-inferred DOS
attacks.
Traffic of a multicast channel for which there are no members in a
given multicast VPN MUST NOT be propagated within this multicast VPN,
most particularly if this traffic comes from another VPN or from the
Internet.
Security considerations are particularly important for inter-AS and
inter-provider deployments. In such cases, it is RECOMMENDED that a
multicast VPN solution support means to ensure the integrity and
authenticity of multicast-related exchanges across inter-ASes or
inter-provider borders. It is RECOMMENDED that corresponding
procedures require the least possible coordination between providers;
more precisely, when specific configurations or cryptographic keys
have to be deployed, this shall be limited to ASBRs (Autonomous
Systems Border Routers) or a subset of them, and optionally BGP Route
Reflectors (or a subset of them).
Lastly, control mechanisms described in Section 5.2.5 are also to be
considered from this infrastructure security point of view.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5.2.9. Robustness
Resiliency is also crucial to infrastructure security, thus a
multicast VPN solution SHOULD either avoid single points of failures
or propose some technical solution making it possible to implement a
fail-over mechanism.
As an illustration, one can consider the case of a solution that
would use PIM-SM as a means to setup MDTunnels. In such a case, the
PIM RP might be a single point of failure. Such a solution SHOULD
thus be compatible with a solution implementing RP resiliency, such
as anycast-RP [I-D.ietf-pim-anycast-rp] or BSR [I-D.ietf-pim-sm-bsr].
5.2.10. Operation, Administration and Maintenance
The operation of a multicast VPN solution SHALL be as light as
possible and providing automatic configuration and discovery SHOULD
be a priority while designing a multicast VPN solution. Particularly
the operational burden of setting up multicast on a PE or for a VR/
VRF SHOULD be as low as possible.
Also, as far as possible, the design of a solution SHOULD carefully
consider the number of protocols within the core network: if any
additional protocols are introduced compared with the unicast VPN
service, the balance between their advantage and operational burden
SHOULD be examined thoroughly.
Moreover, monitoring of multicast specific parameters and statistics
SHOULD be offered to the service provider, following requirements
expressed in [RFC4176].
Most notably the provider SHOULD have access to:
o Multicast traffic statistics (incoming/outgoing/dropped/total
traffic conveyed, by period of time)
o Information about client multicast resource usage (multicast
routing states and bandwidth usage)
o Alarms when limits are reached on such resources
o The IPPM (IP Performance Metrics [RFC2330]) -related information
that is relevant to the multicast traffic usage: such information
includes the one-way packet delay, the inter-packet delay
variation, etc.
o Statistics on decisions related to how client traffic is carried
on distribution tunnels (e.g. "traffic switched onto a multicast
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
tree dedicated to such groups or channels")
o Statistics on parameters that could help the provider to evaluate
its optimality/state trade-off
This information SHOULD be made available through standardized
protocols such as SNMP ([RFC1441], [RFC3411]) MIBs (Management
Information Bases) or IPFIX[RFC1441]. For instance, in the context
of BGP/MPLS VPNs [RFC4364], multicast extensions to MIBs defined in
[RFC4382] SHOULD be proposed, with proper articulation with
[RFC3811], [RFC3812], [RFC3813] and [RFC3814] when applicable.
Mechanisms similar to those described in Section 5.2.12 SHOULD also
exist for proactive monitoring of the MDTunnels.
Proposed OAM mechanisms and procedures for multicast VPNs SHOULD be
scalable with respects to parameters mentioned in Section 5.2.2. In
particular, it is RECOMMENDED that particular attention is given to
the impact of monitoring mechanisms on performances and QoS.
5.2.11. Compatibility and migration issues
It is a requirement that unicast and multicast services MUST be able
to co-exist within the same VPN.
Likewise, a multicast VPN solution SHOULD be designed so that its
activation in devices that participate in the deployment and the
maintenance of a multicast VPN SHOULD be as smooth as possible, i.e.
without affecting the overall quality of the services that are
already supported by the underlying infrastructure.
A multicast VPN solution SHOULD prevent compatibility and migration
issues, for instance by prioritizing mechanisms facilitating forward
compatibility. Most notably a solution supporting only a subset of
those requirements SHOULD be designed to be compatible with future
enhanced revisions.
It SHOULD be an aim of any multicast VPN solution to offer as much
backward compatibility as possible. Ideally a solution would have be
the ability to offer multicast VPN services across a network
containing some legacy routers that do not support any multicast VPN
specific features.
In any case a solution SHOULD state a migration policy from possibly
existing deployments.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
5.2.12. Troubleshooting
A multicast VPN solution that dynamically adapts the way some client
multicast traffic is carried over the provider's network may incur
the disadvantage of being hard to troubleshoot. In such a case, to
help diagnose multicast network issues, a multicast VPN solution
SHOULD provide monitoring information describing how client traffic
is carried over the network (e.g. if a solution uses multicast-based
MDTunnels, which provider multicast group is used for such and such
client multicast stream). A solution MAY also provide configuration
options to avoid any dynamic changes, for multicast traffic of a
particular VPN or a particular multicast stream.
Moreover, a solution MAY usefully provide some mechanism that allow
network operators to check that all VPN sites that advertised
interest in a particular customer multicast stream are properly
associated with the corresponding MDTunnel. Providing operators with
means to check the proper setup and operation of MDTunnels MAY also
be provided (e.g. when P2MP MPLS is used for MDTunnels,
troubleshooting functionalities SHOULD integrate mechanisms compliant
with [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs], such as LSPPing[RFC4379][I-
D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping]). Depending on the implementation such
verification could be initiated by source-PE or receiver-PE.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
6. Security Considerations
This document does not by itself raise any particular security issue.
A set of security issues have been identified that MUST be addressed
when considering the design and deployment of multicast-enabled L3 PP
VPNs. Such issues have been described in Section 5.1.5 and
Section 5.2.8.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank, by rough chronological order,
Vincent Parfait, Zubair Ahmad, Elodie Hemon-Larreur, Sebastien Loye,
Rahul Aggarwal, Hitoshi Fukuda, Luyuan Fang, Adrian Farrel, Daniel
King, Yiqun Cai, Ronald Bonica, Len Nieman, Satoru Matsushima,
Netzahualcoyotl Ornelas, Yakov Rekhter, Marshall Eubanks, Pekka
Savola, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins, Thomas Nadeau, for their review,
valuable input and feedback.
We also thank the people who kindly answered the survey, and Daniel
King who took care of gathering and anonymizing its results.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
9. References
9.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4031] Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements for Layer
3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
RFC 4031, April 2005.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005.
[RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
RFC 2362, June 1998.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[I-D.ietf-pim-sm-v2-new]
Fenner, B., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
(PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)",
draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-12 (work in progress),
March 2006.
[RFC4176] El Mghazli, Y., Nadeau, T., Boucadair, M., Chan, K., and
A. Gonguet, "Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private
Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management", RFC 4176,
October 2005.
9.2. Informative references
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr]
Ould-Brahim, H., "Network based IP VPN Architecture Using
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
Virtual Routers", draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-03 (work in
progress), March 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ssm-arch]
Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", draft-ietf-ssm-arch-07 (work in progress),
October 2005.
[RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking",
RFC 2432, October 1998.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp]
Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to
Multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05 (work
in progress), May 2006.
[I-D.ietf-pim-sm-bsr]
Bhaskar, N., "Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for PIM",
draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-08 (work in progress), May 2006.
[I-D.ietf-pim-anycast-rp]
Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP using PIM",
draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-07 (work in progress),
February 2006.
[RFC3446] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
(MSDP)", RFC 3446, January 2003.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp]
Minei, I., "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00 (work in
progress), March 2006.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs]
Roux, J., "Requirements for point-to-multipoint extensions
to the Label Distribution Protocol",
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-00 (work in progress),
May 2006.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs]
Farrel, A., "OAM Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01 (work in
progress), February 2006.
[I-D.ietf-pim-bidir]
Handley, M., "Bi-directional Protocol Independent
Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", draft-ietf-pim-bidir-08 (work in
progress), October 2005.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC3353] Ooms, D., Sales, B., Livens, W., Acharya, A., Griffoul,
F., and F. Ansari, "Overview of IP Multicast in a Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Environment", RFC 3353,
August 2002.
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, May 2002.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]
Claise, B., "IPFIX Protocol Specification",
draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-21 (work in progress),
April 2006.
[RFC4045] Bourdon, G., "Extensions to Support Efficient Carrying of
Multicast Traffic in Layer-2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)",
RFC 4045, April 2005.
[RFC3809] Nagarajan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC 3809,
June 2004.
[RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definitions of Textual
Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812,
June 2004.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813,
June 2004.
[RFC3814] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Viswanathan,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding
Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-
To-NHLFE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3814,
June 2004.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
RFC 2365, July 1998.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC3180] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8",
BCP 53, RFC 3180, September 2001.
[RFC1441] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
"Introduction to version 2 of the Internet-standard
Network Management Framework", RFC 1441, April 1993.
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
December 2002.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping]
Yasukawa, S., "Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-
Multipoint MPLS Traffic Engineering - Extensions to LSP
Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-01 (work in
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
progress), April 2006.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, April 2006.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC4382] Nadeau, T. and H. van der Linde, "MPLS/BGP Layer 3 Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Management Information Base",
RFC 4382, February 2006.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
Appendix A. Changelog
This section lists changes made to this document (minor or editorial
changes excepted) between major revisions.
It shall be removed before publication as an RFC.
A.1. Changes between -00 and -01
o integrated comments made on L3VPN WG mailing list after -00
submission
o completed Carrier's carrier section (5.1.9)
o updates in sections 5.1 and 5.2 about minimum MTU
o added a section about "Quality of Service Differentiation" as ISP
requirement (section 5.2.5)
o added P2MP LDP extensions as possible MDTunnels techniques
(section 5.2.3.1)
o started to build section 4 "Use Case"
o detailed section 5.1.3 "QoS", most notably about group join and
leave delays
o additions to section 5.2.12 "Inter-AS, inter-provider"
o added MDTunnel verification requirement to section 5.2.11
o moved "Architectural Considerations" section
o moved contributors to top of document
o made draft content agnostic to unicast L3VPN solutions
o added two appendixes: "Changelog" and "Requirement summary"
o conversion to XML [RFC2629] with the help of some scripting and
Bill Fenner's xml2rfc XMLMind plugin
o lot's of editorial changes
A.2. Changes between -01 and -02
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
o based on survey results:
* restructure use case scenario section
* fill in Scalability orders of magnitude section
* better detail requirements for protocols at the PE-CE level
* add considerations about PEs with scarce connectivity to
section 5.2.3.3
* step up requirement level for Extranet (Section 5.1.6)
o some editorial changes
o use capitalized wording for some requirements
o fill in requirements summary
A.3. Changes between -02 and -03
o made inter-AS a MUST (and moved the whole section up)
o add a requirement about security of multicast-related exchanges
across providers/ASes, in Section 5.2.8
o some editorial changes and fixed typos
A.4. Changes between -03 and -04
o Integrated comments received during last call
o Lots of editorial comments
o Improved terminology section
o Number of VPNs with multicast enabled: A solution SHOULD NOT limit
the proportion of multicast VPNs among all (unicast) VPNs.
o Customer-side service definition Enabling a VPN for multicast
support SHOULD be possible with no (or very limited impact) on
existing multicast protocols possibly already deployed on the CE
devices
o Extranet: a solution MUST allow to control an extranet multicast
connectivity independently from the extranet unicast connectivity
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
o Service provider standpoint, added a general statement: "The
deployment of a multicast VPN solution SHOULD be possible with no
(or very limited) impact on possibly existing deployments of
multicast protocols on P and PE routers."
o Removed institutions and company names from the already long
acknowledgments section.
A.5. Changes between -04 and -05
o Follow up of mailing list comments integration
o 2547bis is now 4364
o CE-PE Multicast routing and management protocols: clarified IPv6
related statements
o More precisions in 5.1.7. "Extranet"
o Revamped section 5.1.11 "RP Engineering" : separated text about
different issues "RP Outsourcing", "RP Availability", "RP
Location". Updated 5.1.10 accordingly.
o Updated 5.2.10 about proactive monitoring of tunnels
o Removed requirements summary
o Lots of editorial changes
A.6. Changes between -05 and -06
o editorial changes
o revamp OAM-related sections to integrate comments made on WG
mailing-list
A.7. Changes between -06 and -08
o minor editorial changes
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
Author's Address
Thomas Morin (editor)
France Telecom R&D
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: thomas.morin@rd.francetelecom.com
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft L3VPN Mcast Reqs May 2006
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.
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Morin Expires November 30, 2006 [Page 44]
