Network Working Group M. Christensen
Internet Draft Thrane & Thrane
Expiration Date: December 2003 K. Kimball
Category: Informational Hewlett-Packard
F. Solensky
August 2003
Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches
<draft-ietf-magma-snoop-09.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026].
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo describes the recommendations for IGMP- and MLD-snooping
switches. These are based on best current practices for IGMPv2,
with further considerations for IGMPv3- and MLDv2-snooping.
Additional areas of relevance, such as link layer topology changes
and Ethernet-specific encapsulation issues, are also considered.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 1]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
1. Introduction
The IEEE bridge standard [BRIDGE] specifies how LAN packets are
'bridged', or as is more commonly used today, switched between LAN
segments. The operation of a switch with respect to multicast
packets can be summarized as follows. When processing a packet
whose destination MAC address is a multicast address, the switch
will forward a copy of the packet into each of the remaining
network interfaces that are in the forwarding state in accordance
with [BRIDGE]. The spanning tree algorithm ensures that the
application of this rule at every switch in the network will make
the packet accessible to all nodes connected to the network.
This behaviour works well for broadcast packets that are intended
to be seen or processed by all connected nodes. In the case of
multicast packets, however, this approach could lead to less
efficient use of network bandwidth, particularly when the packet is
intended for only a small number of nodes. Packets will be flooded
into network segments where no node has any interest in receiving
the packet. While nodes will rarely incur any processing overhead
to filter packets addressed to unrequested group addresses, they
are unable to transmit new packets onto the shared media for the
period of time that the multicast packet is flooded. In general,
significant bandwidth can be wasted by flooding.
In recent years, a number of commercial vendors have introduced
products described as "IGMP snooping switches" to the market.
These devices do not adhere to the conceptual model that provides
the strict separation of functionality between different
communications layers in the ISO model, and instead utilize
information in the upper level protocol headers as factors to be
considered in processing at the lower levels. This is analogous to
the manner in which a router can act as a firewall by looking into
the transport protocol's header before allowing a packet to be
forwarded to its destination address.
In the case of IP multicast traffic, an IGMP snooping switch
provides the benefit of conserving bandwidth on those segments of
the network where no node has expressed interest in receiving
packets addressed to the group address. This is in contrast to
normal switch behavior where multicast traffic is typically
forwarded on all interfaces.
Many switch datasheets state support for IGMP snooping, but no
recommendations for this exist today. It is the authors' hope that
the information presented in this draft will supply this
foundation.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 2]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
The recommendations presented here are based on the following
information sources: The IGMP specifications [RFC1112], [RFC2236]
and [IGMPv3], vendor-supplied technical documents [CISCO], bug
reports [MSOFT], discussions with people involved in the design of
IGMP snooping switches, MAGMA mailing list discussions, and on
replies by switch vendors to an implementation questionnaire.
Interoperability issues that arise between different versions of
IGMP are not the focus of this document. Interested readers are
directed to [IGMPv3] for a thorough description of problem areas.
The suggestions in this document are based on IGMP, which applies
only to IPv4. For IPv6, Multicast Listener Discovery [MLD] must be
used instead. Because MLD is based on IGMP, we do not repeat the
entire description and recommendations for MLD snooping switches.
Instead, we point out the few cases where there are differences
from IGMP.
Note that the IGMP snooping function should apply only to IPv4
multicasts. Other multicast packets, such as IPv6, might be
suppressed by IGMP snooping if additional care is not taken in the
implementation as mentioned in the recommendations section. It is
desired not to restrict the flow of non-IPv4 multicasts other than
to the degree which would happen as a result of regular bridging
functions. Likewise, MLD snooping switches are discouraged from
using topological information learned from IPv6 traffic to alter
the forwarding of IPv4 multicast packets.
2. IGMP Snooping Recommendations
The following sections list the recommendations for an IGMP
snooping switch. The recommendation is stated and is supplemented
by a description of a possible implementation approach. All
implementation discussions are examples only and there may well be
other ways to achieve the same functionality.
2.1. Forwarding rules
The IGMP snooping functionality is separated into a control section
(IGMP forwarding) and a data section (Data forwarding).
2.1.1. IGMP Forwarding Rules
1) A snooping switch should forward IGMP Membership Reports only
to those ports where multicast routers are attached.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 3]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Alternatively stated: a snooping switch should not forward IGMP
Membership Reports to ports on which only hosts are attached.
An administrative control may be provided to override this
restriction, allowing the report messages to be flooded to
other ports.
This is the main IGMP snooping functionality for the control
path.
Sending membership reports to other hosts can result, for
IGMPv1 and IGMPv2, in unintentionally preventing a host from
joining a specific multicast group.
When an IGMPv1 or IGMPv2 host receives a membership report for
a group address that it is intending to join, the host will
suppress its own membership report for the same group. This
join or message suppression is a requirement for IGMPv1 and
IGMPv2 hosts. However, if a switch does not receive a
membership report from the host it will not forward multicast
data to it.
This is not a problem in an IGMPv3-only network because there
is no suppression of IGMP Membership reports.
The administrative control allows IGMP Membership Report
messages to be processed by network monitoring equipment such
as packet analyzers or port replicators.
The switch supporting IGMP snooping must maintain a list of
multicast routers and the ports on which they are attached.
This list can be constructed in any combination of the
following ways:
a) This list should be built by the snooping switch sending
Multicast Router Solicitation messages as described in IGMP
Multicast Router Discovery [MRDISC]. It may also snoop
Multicast Router Advertisement messages sent by and to
other nodes.
b) The arrival port for IGMP Queries (sent by multicast
routers) where the source address is not 0.0.0.0.
The 0.0.0.0 address represents a special case where the
switch is proxying IGMP Queries for faster network
convergence, but is not itself the Querier. The switch
does not use its own IP address (even if it has one),
because this would cause the Queries to be seen as coming
from a newly elected Querier. The 0.0.0.0 address is used
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 4]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
to indicate that the Query packets are NOT from a multicast
router.
c) Ports explicitly configured by management to be IGMP-
forwarding ports, in addition to or instead of any of the
above methods to detect router ports.
2) IGMP snooping switches may also implement "proxy-reporting" in
which reports received from downstream hosts are summarized and
used to build internal membership states as described in
[PROXY]. The IGMP proxy-reporting switch would then report its
own state in response to upstream queriers. If the switch does
not already have an IP address assigned to it, the source
address for these reports should be set to all-zeros.
An IGMP proxy-reporting switch may act as Querier for the
downstream hosts while proxy reporting to the 'real' upstream
queriers.
It should be noted that there may be multiple IGMP proxy-
reporting switches in the network all using the 0.0.0.0 source
IP address. In this case the switches can be uniquely
identified through their link layer source MAC address.
IGMP membership reports must not be rejected by an IGMP
snooping switch because of a source IP address of 0.0.0.0.
3) The switch that supports IGMP snooping must flood all
unrecognized IGMP messages to all other ports and must not
attempt to make use of any information beyond the end of the
network layer header.
In addition, earlier versions of IGMP should interpret IGMP
fields as defined for their versions and must not alter these
fields when forwarding the message. When generating new
messages, a given IGMP version should set fields to the
appropriate values for its own version. If any fields are
reserved or otherwise undefined for a given IGMP version, the
fields should be ignored when parsing the message and must be
set to zeroes when new messages are generated by
implementations of that IGMP version. An exception may occur
if the switch is performing a spoofing function, and is aware
of the settings for new or reserved fields that would be
required to correctly spoof for a different IGMP version.
The reason to worry about these trivialities is that IGMPv3
overloads the old IGMP query message using the same type number
(0x11) but with an extended header. Therefore there is a risk
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 5]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
that IGMPv3 queries may be interpreted as older version queries
by, for example, IGMPv2 snooping switches. This has already
been reported [IETF56] and is discussed in section 2.2.
4) An IGMP snooping switch should be aware of link layer topology
changes caused by Spanning Tree operation. When a port is
enabled or disabled by Spanning Tree, a General Query may be
sent on all active non-router ports in order to reduce network
convergence time. Non-Querier switches should be aware of
whether the Querier is in IGMPv3 mode. If so, the switch should
not spoof any General Queries unless it is able to send an
IGMPv3 Query that adheres to the most recent information sent
by the true Querier. In no case should a switch introduce a
spoofed IGMPv2 Query into an IGMPv3 network, as this may create
excessive network disruption.
If the switch is not the Querier, it should use the 'all-zeros'
IP Source Address in these proxy queries (even though some
hosts may elect to not process queries with a 0.0.0.0 IP Source
Address). When such proxy queries are received, they must not
be included in the Querier election process.
5) An IGMP snooping switch must not make use of information in
IGMP packets where the IP or IGMP headers have checksum or
integrity errors. The switch should not flood such packets but
if it does, it should also take some note of the event (i.e.,
increment a counter). These errors and their processing are
further discussed in [IGMPv3], [MLD] and [MLDv2].
6) The snooping switch must not rely exclusively on the appearance
of IGMP Group Leave announcements to determine when entries
should be removed from the forwarding table. It should
implement a membership timeout mechanism such as the router-
side functionality of the IGMP protocol as described in the
IGMP and MLD specifications (See Normative Reference section
for IGMPv1-3 and MLDv1-2) on all its non-router ports. This
timeout value should be configurable.
2.1.2. Data Forwarding Rules
1) Packets with a destination IP address outside 224.0.0.X which
are not IGMP should be forwarded according to group-based port
membership tables and must also be forwarded on router ports.
This is the main IGMP snooping functionality for the data path.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 6]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
One approach that an implementation could take would be to
maintain separate membership and multicast router tables in
software and then "merge" these tables into a forwarding cache.
2) Packets with a destination IP (DIP) address in the 224.0.0.X
range which are not IGMP must be forwarded on all ports.
This recommendation is based on fact that many host systems do
not send Join IP multicast addresses in this range before
sending or listening to IP multicast packets. Furthermore,
since the 224.0.0.X address range is defined as link-local (not
to be routed) it seems unnecessary to keep state for each
address in this range. Additionally, some routers operate in
the 224.0.0.X address range without issuing IGMP Joins, and
these applications would break if the switch were to prune them
due to not having seen a Join Group message from the router.
3) An unregistered packet is defined as an IPv4 multicast packet
with a destination address which does not match any of the
groups announced in earlier IGMP Membership Reports.
If a switch receives an unregistered packet, it must forward
that packet on all ports to which an IGMP router is attached.
A switch may default to forwarding unregistered packets on all
ports. Switches that do not forward unregistered packets to
all ports must include a configuration option to force the
flooding of unregistered packets on specified ports.
In an environment where IGMPv3 hosts are mixed with snooping
switches that do not yet support IGMPv3, the switch's failure
to flood unregistered streams could prevent v3 hosts from
receiving their traffic. Alternatively, in environments where
the snooping switch supports all of the IGMP versions that are
present, flooding unregistered streams may cause IGMP hosts to
be overwhelmed by multicast traffic, even to the point of not
receiving Queries and failing to issue new membership reports
for their own groups.
It is encouraged that snooping switches at least recognize and
process IGMPv3 Join Reports, even if this processing is limited
to the behavior for IGMPv2 Joins, i.e., is done without
considering any additional "include source" or "exclude source"
filtering. When IGMPv3 Joins are not recognized, a snooping
switch may incorrectly prune off the unregistered data streams
for the groups (as noted above); alternatively, it may fail to
add in forwarding to any new IGMPv3 hosts if the group has
previously been joined as IGMPv2 (because the data stream is
seen as already having been registered).
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 7]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
4) All non-IPv4 multicast packets should continue to be flooded
out all remaining ports in the forwarding state as per normal
IEEE bridging operations.
This recommendation is a result of the fact that groups made up
of IPv4 hosts and IPv6 hosts are completely separate and
distinct groups. As a result, information gleaned from the
topology between members of an IPv4 group would not be
applicable when forming the topology between members of an IPv6
group.
5) IGMP snooping switches may maintain forwarding tables based on
either MAC addresses or IP addresses. If a switch supports
both types of forwarding tables then the default behavior
should be to use IP addresses. IP address based forwarding is
preferred because the mapping between IP multicast addresses
and link-layer multicast addresses is ambiguous. In the case
of Ethernet, there is a multiplicity of 1 Ethernet address to
32 IP addresses [RFC1112].
6) Switches which rely on information in the IP header should
verify that the IP header checksum is correct. If the checksum
fails, the information in the packet must not be incorporated
into the forwarding table. Further, the packet should be
discarded.
7) When IGMPv3 "include source" and "exclude source" membership
reports are received on shared segments, the switch needs to
forward the superset of all received membership reports onto
the shared segment. Forwarding of traffic from a particular
source S to a group G must happen if at least one host on the
shared segment reports an IGMPv3 membership of the type
INCLUDE(G, Slist1) or EXCLUDE(G, Slist2) where S is an element
of Slist1 and not an element of Slist2.
The practical implementation of the (G,S1,S2,...) based data
forwarding tables are not within the scope of this document.
However, one possibility is to maintain two (G,S) forwarding
lists: one for the INCLUDE filter where a match of a specific
(G,S) is a requirement before forwarding will happen, and one
for the EXCLUDE filter where a match of a specific (G,S) will
result in no forwarding.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 8]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
2.2. IGMP snooping-related problems
A special problem arises in networks consisting of IGMPv3 routers
as well as IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 hosts interconnected by an IGMPv2
snooping switch as recently reported [IETF56]. The router will
continue to maintain IGMPv3 even in the presence of IGMPv2 hosts,
and thus the network will not converge on IGMPv2. But it is likely
that the IGMPv2 snooping switch will not recognize or process the
IGMPv3 membership reports. Groups for these unrecognized reports
will then either be flooded (with all of the problems that may
create for hosts in a network with a heavy multicast load) or
pruned by the snooping switch.
Therefore, it is recommended that in such a network, the multicast
router be configured to use IGMPv2. If this is not possible, and if
the snooping switch cannot recognize and process the IGMPv3
membership reports, it is instead recommended that the switch's
IGMP snooping functionality be disabled, as there is no clear
solution to this problem.
3. IPv6 Considerations
In order to avoid confusion, the previous discussions have been
based on the IGMP protocol which only applies to IPv4 multicast.
In the case of IPv6 most of the above discussions are still valid
with a few exceptions which we will describe here.
The control and data forwarding rules in the IGMP section can, with
a few considerations, also be applied to MLD. This means that the
basic functionality of intercepting MLD packets, and building
membership lists and multicast router lists, is the same as for
IGMP.
In IPv6, the data forwarding rules are more straight forward
because MLD is mandated for addresses with scope 2 (link-scope) or
greater. The only exception is the address FF02::1 which is the
all hosts link-scope address for which MLD messages are never sent.
Packets with the all hosts link-scope address should be forwarded
on all ports.
MLD messages are also not sent regarding groups with addresses in
the range FF00::/15 (which encompasses both the reserved FF00::/16
and node-local FF01::/16 IPv6 address spaces). These addresses
should never appear in packets on the link.
Equivalent to the IPv4 behaviors regarding the null IP Source
address, MLD membership reports must not be rejected by an MLD
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 9]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
snooping switch because of an unspecified IP source address (::).
Additionally, if a non-Querier switch spoofs any General Queries
(as addressed in Section 2.1 above, for Spanning Tree topology
changes), the switch should use the null IP source address (::)
when sending said queries. When such proxy queries are received,
they must not be included in the Querier election process.
The three major differences between IPv4 and IPv6 in relation to
multicast are:
- The IPv6 protocol for multicast group maintenance is called
Multicast Listener Discovery [MLDv2]. MLDv2 uses ICMPv6 message
types instead of IGMP message types.
- The RFCs [IPV6-ETHER] and [IPV6-FDDI] describe how 24 of the 128
bit DIP address are used to form the 48 bit DMAC addresses for
multicast groups, while [IPV6-TOKEN] describes the mapping for
token ring DMAC addresses by using three low-order bits. The
specification [IPV6-1394] makes use of a 6 bit channel number.
- Multicast router discovery is accomplished using Neighbor
Discovery Protocol [NDP] for IPv6. NDP uses ICMPv6 message
types.
The IPv6 packet header does not include a checksum field.
Nevertheless, the switch should detect other packet integrity
issues such as address version and payload length consistencies if
possible. When the snooping switch detects such an error, it must
not include information from the corresponding packet in the MLD
forwarding table. The forwarding code should instead drop the
packet and take further reasonable actions as advocated above.
The fact that MLDv2 is using ICMPv6 adds new requirements to a
snooping switch because ICMPv6 has multiple uses aside from MLD.
This means that it is no longer sufficient to detect that the next-
header field of the IP header is ICMPv6 in order to identify
packets relevant for MLD snooping. A software-based implemention
which treats all ICMPv6 packets as candidates for MLD snooping
could easily fill its receive queue and bog down the CPU with
irrelevant packets. This would prevent the snooping functionality
from performing its intended purpose and the non-MLD packets
destined for other hosts could be lost.
A solution is either to require that the snooping switch looks
further into the packets, or to be able to detect a multicast DMAC
address in conjunction with ICMPv6. The first solution is
desirable when a configuration option allows the administrator to
specify which ICMPv6 message types should trigger a CPU redirect
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 10]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
and which should not. The reason is that a hardcoding of message
types is inflexible for the introduction of new message types. The
second solution introduces the risk that new protocols which use
ICMPv6 and multicast DMAC addresses could be incorrectly identified
as MLD. It is suggested that solution one is preferred when the
configuration option is provided. If this is not the case, then
the implementor should seriously consider making it available since
Neighbor Discovery messages would be among those that fall into
this false positive case and are vital for the operational
integrity of IPv6 networks.
The mapping from IP multicast addresses to multicast DMAC addresses
introduces a potentially enormous overlap. The structure of an
IPv6 multicast address is shown in the figure below. As a result,
there are 2 ** (112 - (32 - 8)), or more than 7.9e28 unique DIP
addresses which map into a single DMAC address in Ethernet and
FDDI. This should be compared to 2**5 in the case of IPv4.
Initial allocation of IPv6 multicast addresses as described in
[RFC2735], however, cover only the lower 24 bits of group ID.
While this reduces the problem of address ambiguity to group IDs
with different flag and scope values for now, it should be noted
that the allocation policy may change in the future. Because of
the potential overlap it is recommended that IPv6 address based
forwarding is preferred to MAC address based forwarding.
| 8 | 4 | 4 | 112 bits |
+--------+----+----+---------------------------------------+
|11111111|flgs|scop| group ID |
+--------+----+----+---------------------------------------+
4. IGMP Questionnaire
As part of this work the following questions were asked both on the
MAGMA discussion list and sent to known switch vendors implementing
IGMP snooping. The individual contributions have been anonymized
upon request and do not necessarily apply to all of the vendors'
products.
The questions were:
Q1 Does your switches perform IGMP Join aggregation? In other
words, are IGMP joins intercepted, absorbed by the
hardware/software so that only one Join is forwarded to the
querier?
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 11]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Q2 Is multicast forwarding based on MAC addresses? Would
datagrams addressed to multicast IP addresses 224.1.2.3 and
239.129.2.3 be forwarded on the same ports-groups?
Q3 Is it possible to forward multicast datagrams based on IP
addresses (not routed)? In other words, could 224.1.2.3 and
239.129.2.3 be forwarded on different port-groups with
unaltered TTL?
Q4 Are multicast datagrams within the range 224.0.0.1 to
224.0.0.255 forwarded on all ports whether or not IGMP Joins
have been sent?
Q5 Are multicast frames within the MAC address range
01:00:5E:00:00:01 to 01:00:5E:00:00:FF forwarded on all ports
whether or not IGMP joins have been sent?
Q6 Does your switch support forwarding to ports on which IP
multicast routers are attached in addition to the ports where
IGMP Joins have been received?
Q7 Is your IGMP snooping functionality fully implemented in
hardware?
Q8 Is your IGMP snooping functionality partly software
implemented?
Q9 Can topology changes (for example spanning tree configuration
changes) be detected by the IGMP snooping functionality so that
for example new queries can be sent or tables can be updated to
ensure robustness?
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 12]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
The answers were:
---------------------------+-----------------------+
| Switch Vendor |
---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Q1 Join aggregation | x | x | x | | x | x |
Q2 Layer-2 forwarding | x | x | x | x |(1)| |
Q3 Layer-3 forwarding |(1)| |(1)| |(1)| x |
Q4 224.0.0.X aware |(1)| x |(1)|(2)| x | x |
Q5 01:00:5e:00:00:XX aware | x | x | x |(2)| x | x |
Q6 Mcast router list | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Q7 Hardware implemented | | | | | | |
Q8 Software assisted | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Q9 Topology change aware | x | x | x | x | |(2)|
---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
x Means that the answer was Yes.
(1) In some products (typically high-end) Yes; in others No.
(2) Not at the time that the questionnaire was received
but expected in the near future.
Revision History
[To RFC Editor: This section is to be removed at publication time]
This section, while incomplete, is provided as a convenience to the
working group members. It will be removed when the document is
released in its final form.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-09.txt: August 2003
The changes in this version are the result of the AD review
following the WG chair review.
Substantial comments
There were no substantial technical comments, but a list
of suggested wordings and clarifications to improve the
readability and RFC conformance of the draft.
Reference in Abstract removed. Improved wording in
Introduction.
Improved wording in recommendations section, clarified
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 13]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
integrity checking for IPv6, removed security issues
which were really IGMP/MLD security issues.
Editorial Changes
Author information changes, TOC added, fixed a wrong
indentation following section 5.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-08.txt: June 2003
The changes in this version are the result of the WG chair
review following the second WG last call. The last call itself
did not result in further comments.
Substantial comments
Requirements have now been replaced with Recommendations
throughout the draft, which is more appropriate for an
Informational draft.
Clarifications regarding the overloading of the IGMP
query message in section 2.1.1.
Clarification regarding the data forwarding in the case
of INCLUDE/EXCLUDE filters.
More detail added on the special case of Source IP
address 0.0.0.0.
Editorial Changes
Moved Data Forwarding recommendation up as first bullet
as it really is the main recommendation.
Added a more suitable reference for the Thaler briefing
at the 56'th IETF meeting. Hopefully it will become a
valid link sometime soon.
Moved reference to RFC2375 to the Informative section.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-07.txt: May 2003
The current version reflects comments made at the 56'th IETF
meeting and from the previous WG last call. The majority of
changes appear in sections 2.1 and 2.2, and even the changes
here are in reality not substantial.
Substantial comments
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 14]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Section 2.1.1.(4): Changed wording for IGMP forwarding
section on when spoofing of General Queries should occur.
Added description of how to avoid IGMP version
incompatibility problems when doing said spoofing.
Section 2.1.2.(3): Clarification of incompatibility
problems in mixed IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 networks. Added
recommendation for switches to implement some level of
IGMPv3 Join recognition to reduce these problems.
Section 2.2: Advice following the briefing [IETF56], that
in some cases disabling IGMP snooping functionality is
the only 'solution'
Section 6, IPv6 Considerations: added descriptions of
behavior involving the IPv6 version of the null IP Source
Address (to parallel the IPv4 behaviors).
Added reference to [IGMPv3] in stead of [PROXY] for group
membership maintenance and timeout.
Editorial Changes
Really minor stuff such as change of authors email
address, addition of references, draft name increment and
date changes.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-06.txt: March 2003
Changes in response to comments made during WG last call and
assessment by the WG chairs:
Substantial comments
Clarification in IGMP forwarding section on the
acceptance of membership reports with source IP address
0.0.0.0 as being a switch recommendation.
Section 2.1.1.(4): Allow the router port to be excluded
from the General Query messages
Section 2.1.1.(6): Replace description of timing out
older entries with a reference to IGMP/MLD Proxying.
Section 2.1.2.(3): Replaced description of timeout
mechanism with a reference to IGMP/MLD.
Section 2.1.2.(4) Expanded rationale to discourage
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 15]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
leaking info between IPv4 and IPv6 groups.
Section 3: more strongly encourage the use of a
configuration option for selection of ICMPv6 message
types.
Editorial comments.
Hyphenation problem resolved for groff by setting then ms
HY register to zero, disabling all forms for the entire
document
(".hy 0" and ".nr" worked only as far as the following
ms macro).
Sections moved around - again - to comply with
rfc2223bis-03 draft. Added copyright notice after memo
status. Removed table of contents as the draft is fairly
short. Corrected a reference typo.
Section 2.1.2.(3): Requirement and rationale broken into
separate paragraphs.
Added references to other IPv6 encapsulation documents,
Corrected estimates for MAC address collisions for
Ethernet and FDDI: both specification take the low-order
four (not six) bytes from the IPv6 group addresses.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-05.txt: January 2003
Changes in wording of IGMP forwarding rule 6) and Data
forwarding rule 7). Corrections in the references section.
Apart from above, no substantial changes has occured in the
document. Several editorial changes, however, have been made
to comply with the rfc editors requirements:
References splitted in normative and informative sections,
other related references added.
Abstract shortened.
Changed all occurances of MUST, MAY etc. to lowercase to
reflect that this is not a standards track document.
Sections moved around so they appear in the required order.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-04.txt: November 2002
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 16]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Editorial changes only.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-03.txt: October 2002
IGMP Forwarding rules:
Add references to and become consistant with the current
IGMP proxy draft,
Unrecognized IGMP packets should not be ignored because
"mbz" fields are not zero since packets from future
versions are expected to maintain consistency.
Corrections related to IGMP Querier election process.
Add clarification to how lists of router ports may be
assembled.
Data Forwarding rules:
Added discussion of the problems for different IGMP
environments in choosing whether to flood or to prune
unregistered multicasts.
Added refinements for how to handle NON-IPv4 multicasts,
to keep IGMP-snooping functionality from interfering with
IPv6 and other multicast traffic. Any filtering for non-
IPv4 multicasts should be based on bridge behavior and
not IGMP snooping behavior.
IGMP snooping related problems:
Fixed description of interoperability issues in
environments with v3 routers and hosts, and v2 snooping
switches.
Added discussion of the IGMPv3 "include source" and
"exclude source" options, and the inability to support
them on shared segments.
IPv6 Considerations:
Clarifications regarding address ranges FF00::, FF01::
and all hosts FF02::1 in relation to data forwarding.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-02.txt: June 2002
Status section removes document history; moved into this
section instead.
Introduction restores text from the -00 revision that
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 17]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
describes snooping and its goals
IGMP flooding rules eased, allowing management option to
broaden beyond "routers only".
Removed a should/MAY inconsistancy between IPv4 Forwarding and
IPv6 processing of checksums.
IGMP Forwarding Rules: clarify text describing processing of
non-zero reserved fields.
Data Forwarding Rules, item 3 is changed from "MUST forward to
all ports" to "MAY"; item 4 default changes from "MUST" to
"should use network addresses".
Added two sets of additional responses to the questionnaire
and text indicating that responses don't cover all products.
Removed (commented out) description of IPR issues: IESG is
aware of them.
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-01.txt: January 2002
Extensive restructuring of the original text.
draft-ietf-idmr-snoop-01.txt: 2001
Added several descriptions of cases where IGMP snooping
implementations face problems. Also added several network
topology figures.
draft-ietf-idmr-snoop-00.txt: 2001
Initial snooping draft. An overview of IGMP snooping and the
problems to be solved.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[BRIDGE] IEEE 802.1D, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges"
[IGMPv3] Cain, B., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC3376, October 2002.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 18]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
[IPV6-1394] Fujisawa, K. and Onoe, A., "Transmission of IPv6
Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC3146, October
2001.
[IPV6-ETHER] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks", RFC2464, December 1998.
[IPV6-FDDI] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI
Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.
[IPV6-TOKEN] Crawford, M., Narten, T. and Thomas, S., "Transmission
of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", RFC2470,
December 1998.
[MLD] Deering, S., Fenner, B. and Haberman, B. "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC2710, October
1999.
[MLDv2] Vida, R. and Costa, L., "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-06.txt,
November 2002.
[MRDISC] Biswas, S., Cain, B. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
Router Discovery", draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-10.txt,
January 2003.
[NDP] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 {IPv6)", RFC2461, December
1998.
[PROXY] Fenner, B. et al, "IGMP/MLD-based Multicast
Forwarding (IGMP/MLD Proxying)", draft-ietf-magma-
igmp-proxy-02.txt, November 2002.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC1112, August 1989.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S. "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 2", RFC2236, November 1997.
5.2. Informative References
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 19]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
[IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Internet
Multicast Addresses",
http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
[CISCO] Cisco Tech Notes, "Multicast In a Campus Network: CGMP
and IGMP snooping",
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/22.html
[MSOFT] Microsoft support article Q223136, "Some LAN Switches
with IGMP Snooping Stop Forwarding Multicast Packets
on RRAS Startup",
http://support.microsoft.com/support/articles/Q223/1/36.ASP
[IETF56] Briefing by Dave Thaler, Microsoft, presented to the
MAGMA WG at the 56'th IETF meeting in San Francisco,
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/index.html
[RFC2375] Hinden, R. "IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments",
RFC2375, July 1998.
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations for IGMPv3/MLDv2 are accounted for in
[IGMPv3] and [MLDv2]. The introduction of IGMP/MLD snooping
switches does not add any critical considerations with regard to IP
multicast security issues.
IGMP snooping switches which rely on the IP header of a packet for
their operation and which do not validate the header checksum,
potentially will forward packets on the wrong ports. Even though
the IP headers are protected by a link layer checksum this is a
potential vulnerability. However, the absence of a header checksum
in IPv6 gives no means of checking the header integrity for these
packets anyway so the implications for IPv4 are not considered
critical.
7. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Martin Bak, Les Bell, Yiqun Cai, Ben Carter,
Paul Congdon, Toerless Eckert, Bill Fenner, Brian Haberman, Edward
Hilquist, Hugh Holbrook, Kevin Humphries, Isidor Kouvelas, Pekka
Savola, Suzuki Shinsuke, Jaff Thomas, Rolland Vida, and Margaret
Wasserman for comments and suggestions on this document.
Furthermore, the following companies are acknowledged for their
contributions: 3Com, Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Enterasys Networks,
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 20]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Hewlett-Packard, Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation. The ordering
of these names do not necessarily correspond to the column numbers
in the response table.
8. Authors' Addresses
Morten Jagd Christensen
Thrane & Thrane
Lundtoftegaardsvej 93 D
2800 Lyngby
DENMARK
email: mjc@tt.dk
Karen Kimball
Hewlett-Packard
8000 Foothills Blvd.
Roseville, CA 95747
USA
email: karen.kimball@hp.com
Frank Solensky
email: solenskyf@acm.org
9. IETF IPR Statement
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on
the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in [RFC-2026]. Copies
of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat."
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 21]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages
other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement:
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 22]
RFC DRAFT Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches June 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IGMP Snooping Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Forwarding rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. IGMP Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. Data Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. IGMP snooping-related problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. IPv6 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IGMP Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IETF IPR Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
[To RFC Editor: The TOC page is to be moved to page 2 at
publication time ]
[To RFC Editor: Page renumbering in TOC and in document will be
necessary ]
Christensen, Kimball, Solensky [Page 1]
