Internet Engineering Task Force Bill Fenner, AT&T Research
INTERNET-DRAFT Haixiang He, Nortel Networks
draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt Brian Haberman, Caspian Networks
Hal Sandick, Sheperd Middle School
Expire: May, 2003 November, 2002
IGMP/MLD-based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
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.
Abstract
In certain topologies, it is not necessary to run a multicast routing
protocol. It is sufficient to learn and proxy group membership
information and simply forward based upon that information. This
draft describes a mechanism for forwarding based solely upon IGMP/MLD
membership information.
This document is a product of the MAGMA working group within the
Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should
be addressed to the working group's mailing list at magma@ietf.org
and/or the authors.
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
1. Introduction
This document applies spanning tree multicast routing[Deering91] to
an IGMP/MLD-only environment. The topology is limited to a tree,
since we specify no protocol to build a spanning tree over a more
complex topology. The root of the tree is assumed to be connected to
a wider multicast infrastructure.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [Bradner97].
2. Definitions
2.1. Upstream Interface
A router's interface in the direction of the root of the tree. Also
called the "Host interface".
2.2. Downstream Interface
Each of a router's interfaces that is not in the direction of the
root of the tree. Also called the "Router interfaces".
2.3. Group Mode
In IPv4 environment, for each multicast group, a group is in IGMPv1
mode if an IGMPv1 report is heard. A group is in IGMPv2 mode if an
IGMPv2 report is heard but no IGMPv1 report is heard. A group is in
IGMPv3 mode if an IGMPv3 report is heard but no IGMPv1 or IGMPv2
report is heard.
In IPv6 environment, for each multicast group, a group is in MLDv1
mode if a MLDv1 report is heard. MLDv1 is equivalent to IGMPv2. A
group is in MLDv2 mode if an MLDv2 report is heard but no MLDv1
report is heard. MLDv2 is equivalent to IGMPv3.
2.4. Subscription
When a group is in IGMPv1 or IGMPv2/MLDv1 mode, the subscription is a
group membership on an interface. When a group is in IGMPv3/MLDv2
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
mode, the subscription is a an IGMPv3/MLDv2 state entry (i.e. a
(multicast address, group timer, filter-mode, source-element list)
tuple) on an interface.
2.5. Membership Database
The database maintained at each router into which the membership
information of each of its downstream interfaces is merged.
3. Abstract protocol definition
A router performing IGMP/MLD-based forwarding has a single upstream
interface and one or more downstream interfaces. These designations
are explicitly configured; there is no protocol to determine what
type each interface is. It performs the router portion of the IGMP
[Deering89, Fenner97, CDFKT02] or MLD [DFH99, VCFDFKH02] protocol on
its downstream interfaces, and the host portion of IGMP/MLD on its
upstream interface. The router MUST NOT perform the router portion
of IGMP/MLD on its upstream interface.
The router maintains a database consisting of the merger of all
subscriptions on any downstream interface. Refer to section 4 for the
details about the construction and maintenance of the membership
database.
The router sends IGMP/MLD membership reports on the upstream
interface when queried, and sends unsolicited reports or leaves when
the database changes.
When the router receives a packet destined for a multicast group, it
uses a list consisting of the upstream interface and any downstream
interface which has a subscription pertaining to this packet and on
which it is the IGMP/MLD Querier. This list may be built dynamically
or cached. It removes the interface on which this packet arrived from
the list and forwards the packet to the remaining interfaces.
Note that the rule that a router must be the querier in order to
forward packets restricts the IP addressing scheme used; in
particular, the IGMP/MLD-based forwarding routers must be given the
lowest IP addresses of any potential IGMP/MLD Querier on the link, in
order to win the IGMP/MLD Querier election. If another device wins
the IGMP/MLD Querier election, no packets will flow.
Forwarder election is necessary for links which are considered to be
downstream links by multiple IGMP/MLD-based forwarders. This rule
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
"piggy-backs" forwarder election on IGMP/MLD Querier election. On a
link with only one IGMP/MLD-based forwarding router, this rule MAY be
disabled (i.e. the router MAY be configured to forward packets to an
interface on which it is not the querier). However, the default
configuration MUST include the querier rule.
Note that this does not protect against an "upstream loop". For
example, as shown in the figure below:
LAN 1 --------------------------------------
Upstream | | Downstream
A B
Downstream | | Upstream
LAN 2 --------------------------------------
B will unconditionally forward packets from LAN 1 to LAN 2, and A
will unconditionally forward packets from LAN 2 to LAN 1. This will
cause an upstream loop. A multicast routing protocol which employs a
tree building algorithm is required to resolve loops like this.
3.1. Topology Restrictions
This specification describes a protocol that works only in a simple
tree topology. The tree must be manually configured by designating
upstream and downstream interfaces on each router, and the root of
the tree is expected to be connected to a wider multicast
infrastructure.
3.2. Supporting Senders
In order for senders to send from inside the proxy tree, all traffic
is forwarded towards the root. The multicast router(s) connected to
the wider multicast infrastructure should be configured to treat all
systems inside the proxy tree as though they were directly connected
-- e.g., for PIM-SM, these routers should Register-encapsulate
traffic from new sources within the proxy tree just as they would
directly-connected sources.
This information is likely to be manually configured; IGMP/MLD-based
multicast forwarding provides no way for the routers upstream of the
proxy tree to know what networks are connected to the proxy tree. If
the proxy topology is congruent with some routing topology, this
information MAY be learned from the routing protocol running on the
topology; e.g. a router may be configured to treat multicast packets
from all prefixes learned from routing protocol X via interface Y as
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
though they were from a directly connected system.
4. Router Behavior
This section describes an IGMP/MLD-based multicast forwarding
router's actions in more detail.
4.1. Membership Database
The router performs the router portion of the IGMP/MLD protocol on
each downstream interface. For each interface, the version of
IGMP/MLD used is explicitly configured and default to the highest
version supported by the system.
The output of this protocol is a set of subscriptions; this set is
maintained separately on each downstream interface. In addition, the
subscriptions on each downstream interface are merged into the
membership database.
The membership database is a set of membership records of the form:
(multicast-address, filter-mode, source-list)
Each record is the result of the merge of all subscriptions for that
record's multicast-address on downstream interfaces. If some
subscriptions are IGMPv1 or IGMPv2/MLDv1 subscriptions, these
subscriptions are converted to IGMPv3/MLDv2 subscriptions. The
IGMPv3/MLDv2 and the converted subscriptions are first preprocessed
to remove the timers in the subscriptions, and if the filter mode is
EXCLUDE, to remove every source whose source timer > 0. Then the
preprocessed subscriptions are merged using the merging rules for
multiple memberships on a single interface specified in the
IGMPv3/MLDv2 specification[CDFKT02,VCFDFKH02] to create the
membership record. For example, there are two downstream interfaces
I1 and I2 that have subscriptions for multicast address G. I1 has an
IGMPv2/MLDv1 subscription that is (G). I2 has an IGMPv3/MLDv2
subscription that has membership information (G, INCLUDE, (S1, S2)).
The I1's subscription is converted to an IGMPv3/MLDv2 subscription
that has membership information (G, EXCLUDE, NULL). Then the
subscriptions are preprocessed and merged and final membership record
is (G, EXCLUDE, NULL).
The router performs the host portion of the IGMP/MLD protocol on
upstream interface. If there is an IGMPv1 or IGMPv2/MLDv1 querier on
upstream network, then the router will perform IGMPv1 or IGMPv2/MLDv1
on upstream interface accordingly. Otherwise, it will perform
IGMPv3/MLDv2.
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
If the router performs IGMPv3/MLDv2 on upstream interface, then when
the composition of the membership database changes, the change in the
database is reported on the upstream interface as though this router
were a host performing the action. If the router performs IGMPv1 or
IGMPv2/MLDv1 on upstream interface, then when the membership records
are created or deleted, the changes are reported on the upstream
interface. All other changes are ignored. When the router reports
using IGMPv1 or IGMPv2/MLDv1, only the multicast address field in the
membership record is used.
4.2. Forwarding Packets
A router forwards packets received on its upstream interface to each
downstream interface based upon the downstream interface's
subscriptions and whether or not this router is the IGMP/MLD Querier
on each interface. A router forwards packets received on any
downstream interface to the upstream interface, and to each
downstream interface other than the incoming interface based upon the
downstream interfaces' subscriptions and whether or not this router
is the IGMP/MLD Querier on each interface. A router MAY use a
forwarding cache in order not to make this decision for each packet,
but MUST update the cache using these rules any time any of the
information used to build it changes.
4.3. SSM Considerations
To support Source-Specific Multicast (SSM), the router should be
compliant with the specification about using IGMPv3 for SSM [HC01].
Note that the router should be compliant with both the IGMP Host
Requirement and the IGMP Router Requirement for SSM since it performs
IGMP Host Portion on upstream interface and IGMP Router Portion on
each downstream interface.
An interface can be configured to perform IGMPv1 or IGMPv2. In this
scenario, the SSM semantic will not be maintained for that interface.
However, a router that supports this document should ignore those
IGMPv1 or IGMPv2 subscriptions sent to SSM addresses. And more
importantly, the packets with source-specific addresses SHOULD not be
forwarded to interfaces with IGMPv2 or IGMPv1 subscriptions for these
addresses.
5. Security Considerations
Since only the Querier forwards packets, the IGMP/MLD Querier
election process may lead to black holes if a non-forwarder is
elected Querier. An attacker on a downstream LAN can cause itself to
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
get elected Querier resulting in no packets being forwarded.
References
Bradner97 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119/BCP 14, Harvard
University, March 1997.
CDFKT02 Cain, B., S. Deering, B. Fenner, I. Kouvelas and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
Deering91 Deering, S., "Multicast Routing in a Datagram
Internetwork", Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University,
December 1991.
Fenner97 Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 2", RFC 2236, Xerox PARC, November 1997.
Deering89 Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC 1112, August 1989.
DFH99 Deering, S., Fenner, W., and Haberman, B., "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
October 1999.
VCFDFKH02 Vida, R., Costa, L., Fdida, S., Deering, S., Fenner, B.,
Kouvelas, I., and Haberman, B., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", Work in Progress.
HC01 Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Using IGMPv3 For Source-
Specific Multicast", Work in Progress.
Author's Address:
William C. Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
75 Willow Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: +1 650 330 7893
Email: fenner@research.att.com
Haixiang He
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1 978 288-7482
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-magma-igmp-proxy-01.txt May, 2003
Email: haixiang@nortelnetworks.com
Brian Haberman
Caspian Networks
One Park Drive, Suite 400
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: +1-919-949-4828
EMail: bkhabs@nc.rr.com
Hal Sandick
Sheperd Middle School
2401 Dakota St.
Durham, NC 27707
Email: sandick@nc.rr.com
Fenner, He, Haberman, Sandick [Page 8]
