Network Working Group D. Thaler
Internet-Draft M. Talwar
Intended status: Standards Track A. Aggarwal
Expires: January 12, 2012 Microsoft Corporation
L. Vicisano
Qualcomm Inc.
T. Pusateri
!j
T. Morin
France Telecom - Orange
July 11, 2011
Automatic IP Multicast Tunneling
draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-11
Abstract
Automatic IP Multicast Tunneling (AMT) allows multicast reception by
isolated multicast-enabled sites or hosts, attached to a network
which has no native multicast support. It enables them to receive
multicast traffic from the native multicast infrastructure without
requiring any manual configuration. AMT uses an encapsulation
interface so that no changes to a host stack or applications are
required, all protocols (not just UDP) are handled, and there is no
additional overhead in core routers.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. AMT Pseudo-Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. AMT Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. AMT Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. AMT Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. AMT Relay Anycast Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. AMT Relay Anycast Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Spoofing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Protocol Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Use of UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. AMT Relay Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.3. Discovery Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. AMT Relay Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.3. Discovery Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3.4. Relay Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. AMT Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.4.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.4.3. Request Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.5. AMT Membership Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.5.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.5.2. Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.5.3. Response MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5.4. Request Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5.5. IGMP/MLD Query (including IP Header) . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5.6. Gateway information fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.6. AMT Membership Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.6.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6.3. Response MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.6.4. Request Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6.5. IGMP/MLD Message (including IP Header) . . . . . . . . 21
6.7. AMT IP Multicast Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.7.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7.3. IP Multicast Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6.8. AMT Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.8.1. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8.2. Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8.3. Original Response MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8.4. Original Request Nonce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8.5. Original Source Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8.6. Original Source Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. AMT Gateway Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. At Startup Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Gateway identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3. Joining Multicast Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7.4. Responding to Relay Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. AMT Relay Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.1. At Startup time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.2. Receiving Relay Discovery messages sent to the Anycast
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.3. Receiving Membership Updates from AMT Gateways . . . . . . 27
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Anycast Prefix Allocation . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1.1. IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1.2. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2. UDP Port number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
1. Introduction
The primary goal of this document is to foster the deployment of
native IP multicast by enabling a potentially large number of nodes
to connect to the already present multicast infrastructure.
Therefore, the techniques discussed here should be viewed as an
interim solution to help in the various stages of the transition to a
native multicast network.
To allow fast deployment, the solution presented here only requires
small and concentrated changes to the network infrastructure, and no
changes at all to user applications or to the socket API of end-
nodes' operating systems. The protocol introduced in this
specification can be deployed in a few strategically-placed network
nodes and in user-installable software modules (pseudo device drivers
and/or user-mode daemons) that reside underneath the socket API of
end-nodes' operating systems. This mechanism is very similar to that
used by "6to4" [RFC3056], [RFC3068] to get automatic IPv6
connectivity.
Effectively, AMT treats the unicast-only inter-network as a large
non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) link layer, over which we require
the ability to multicast. To do this, multicast packets being sent
to site must be encapsulated in unicast packets. If the group has
members in multiple sites, AMT encapsulation of the same multicast
packet will take place multiple times by necessity.
A previous of this solution was previously "Automatic IP Multicast
without explicit Tunnels", to highlight the fact that the tunneling
used is lightweight and does not require statically configured
tunnels used as point to point interfaces.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
2. Applicability
AMT is not a substitute for native multicast or a statically
configured multicast tunnel for high traffic flow. Unicast
replication is required to reach multiple receivers that are not part
of the native multicast infrastructure. However, this is no worse
than regular unicast distribution of streams and in most cases much
better.
This document specifies procedures allowing isolated sites to receive
both general Any Source Multicast (ASM, [RFC1112]), and Specific
Source Multicast (SSM, [RFC4607]).
Earlier versions of this document were describing how to use AMT to
allow isolated non-NAT sites/hosts to transmit SSM multicast ; the
specifications for these functionalities have been left off the
current document for the following reasons: the drawback that these
specifications required a source site Gateway to replicate traffic to
many Relays in the multicast-enabled part of the network, lack of
contributors to document alternative proposals based on AMT,
existence of ways to offer similar functionality using Tunnel Broker
approaches [RFC3053], or at the application layer.
Implementers should be aware that site administrators may have
configured administratively scoped multicast boundaries and a remote
gateway may provide a means to circumvent administrative boundaries.
Therefore, implementations should allow for the configuration of such
boundaries on relays and gateways and perform filtering as needed.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
3. Requirements notation
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].
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
4. Definitions
+---------------+ Internet +---------------+
| AMT Site | | Native MCast |
| | | |
| +------+----+ AMT +----+----+ |
| |AMT Gateway| Anycast |AMT Relay| |
| | +-----+-+ Prefix +-+-----+ | |
| | |AMT IF | <------------|AMT IF | | |
| | +-----+-+ +-+-----+ | |
| +------+----+ +----+----+ |
| | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
4.1. AMT Pseudo-Interface
AMT encapsulation of multicast packets inside unicast packets occurs
at a point that is logically equivalent to an interface, with the
link layer being the unicast-only network. This point is referred to
as a pseudo-interface. Some implementations may treat it exactly
like any other interface and others may treat it like a tunnel end-
point.
4.2. AMT Gateway
A host, or a site gateway router, supporting an AMT Pseudo-Interface.
It does not have native multicast connectivity to the native
multicast backbone infrastructure. It is simply referred to in this
document as a "gateway".
4.3. AMT Site
A multicast-enabled network not connected to the multicast backbone
served by an AMT Gateway. It could also be a stand-alone AMT
Gateway.
4.4. AMT Relay
A multicast router configured to support transit routing between AMT
Sites and the native multicast backbone infrastructure. The relay
router has one or more interfaces connected to the native multicast
infrastructure, zero or more interfaces connected to the non-
multicast capable inter-network, and an AMT pseudo-interface. It is
simply referred to in this document as a "relay".
As with [RFC3056], we assume that normal multicast routers do not
want to be tunnel endpoints (especially if this results in high fan
out). Instead, we assume that special-purpose routers will be
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
deployed that are suitable for serving as relays.
4.5. AMT Relay Anycast Prefix
A well-known address prefix used to advertise (into the unicast
routing infrastructure) a route to an available AMT Relay Router.
This could also be private (i.e., not well-known) for a private
relay.
Prefixes for both IPv4 and IPv6 will be assigned in a future version
of this draft.
4.6. AMT Relay Anycast Address
An anycast address which is used to reach the nearest AMT Relay
Router.
This address corresponds to the setting the low-order octet of the
AMT Relay Anycast Prefix to 1 (for both IPv4 and IPv6).
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
5. Overview
Internet
+---------------+ +---------------+
| AMT Site | 2. 3-way Membership | Native MCast |
| | Handshake | |
| 1. Join +---+---+ =================> +---+---+ |
| +---->|Gateway| | Relay | |
| | +---+---+ <================= +---+---+ |
| R-+ | 3. Receive Data | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
Receiving Multicast in an AMT Site
AMT relays and gateways cooperate to transmit multicast traffic
sourced within the native multicast infrastructure to AMT sites:
relays receive the traffic natively and unicast-encapsulate it to
gateways; gateways decapsulate the traffic and possibly forward it
into the AMT site.
Each gateway has an AMT pseudo-interface that serves as a default
multicast route. Requests to join a multicast session are sent to
this interface and encapsulated to a particular relay reachable
across the unicast-only infrastructure.
Each relay has an AMT pseudo-interface too. Multicast traffic sent
on this interface is encapsulated to zero or more gateways that have
joined to the relay. The AMT recipient-list is determined for each
multicast session. This requires the relay to keep state for each
gateway which has joined a particular group or (source, group) pair.
Multicast packets from the native infrastructure behind the relay
will be sent to each gateway which has requested them.
All multicast packets (data and control) are encapsulated in unicast
packets. UDP encapsulation is used for all AMT control and data
packets using the IANA reserved UDP port number for AMT.
Each relay, plus the set of all gateways using the relay, together
are thought of as being on a separate logical NBMA link. This
implies that the AMT recipient-list is a list of "link layer"
addresses which are (IP address, UDP port) pairs.
Since the number of gateways using a relay can be quite large, and we
expect that most sites will not want to receive most groups, an
explicit-joining protocol is required for gateways to communicate
group membership information to a relay. The two most likely
candidates are the IGMP/MLD protocol [RFC3376], [RFC3810], and the
PIM-Sparse Mode protocol [RFC4601]. Since an AMT gateway may be a
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
host, and hosts typically do not implement routing protocols,
gateways will use IGMP/MLD as described in Section 7 below. This
allows a host kernel (or a pseudo device driver) to easily implement
AMT gateway behavior, and obviates the relay from the need to know
whether a given gateway is a host or a router. From the relay's
perspective, all gateways are indistinguishable from hosts on an NBMA
leaf network.
5.1. Scalability Considerations
It is possible that millions of hosts will enable AMT gateway
functionality and so an important design goal is not to create
gateway state in each relay until the gateway joins a multicast
group. But even the requirement that a relay keep group state per
gateway that has joined a group introduces potential scalability
concerns.
Scalability of AMT can be achieved by adding more relays, and using
an appropriate relay discovery mechanism for gateways to discover
relays. The solution we adopt is to assign addresses in anycast
fashion to relays [RFC1546], [RFC4291]. However, simply sending
periodic membership reports to an anycast address can cause
duplicates. Specifically, if routing changes such that a different
relay receives a periodic membership report, both the new and old
relays will encapsulate data to the AMT site until the old relay's
state times out. This is obviously undesirable. Instead, we use the
anycast address merely to find the unicast address of a relay to
which membership reports are sent.
This approach allows the gateways to be spread out among more relays
so as to keep the number of gateways per relay at a reasonable level.
5.2. Spoofing Considerations
An attacker could affect the group state in the relay by spoofing the
source address in AMT Update messages containing join or leave
reports. This can be used to launch reflection or denial of service
attacks on the target Relay. Such attacks can be mitigated by using
a three way handshake between the gateway and the relay for each
multicast membership report or leave.
When a gateway wants to send a membership report, it first sends an
AMT Request with a request nonce in it. The Relay can calculate a
message authentication code (MAC) based on (for example)the source IP
address of the Request, the source UDP port, the request nonce, and a
secret key known only to the Relay. The algorithm does not have to
be standardized since the Relay generates and verifies the MAC and
the Gateway simply echoes it back, but an algorithm such as
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
HMAC-MD5-48 [RFC2104] SHOULD be used at a minimum.
An AMT Membership Query is sent back to the gateway having originated
the Request, including the request nonce and the MAC. The gateway
then sends the IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener Report or Leave/Done
(including the IP Header) along with the request nonce and the
received MAC back to the relay, finalizing the 3-way handshake.
Upon reception, the relay can recalculate the MAC based on the source
IP address, the source UDP port, the request nonce, and the local
secret. The IGMP/MLD message is only accepted if the received MAC
matches the calculated MAC.
A relay MUST NOT create state for a gateway before successful
validation of a MAC of an AMT Update from this gateway; a relay
SHOULD delete all states for a gateway after a small timer after it
stops having any AMT forwarding state for a Gateway (i.e. the Gateway
left all multicast groups it had joined).
The local secret never has to be shared with the other side. It is
only used to verify return routability of the originator.
Since the same Request Nonce and source IP address can be re-used,
the relay SHOULD change its secret key at least once per hour.
However, AMT Membership updates received with the previous secret
MUST be accepted for up to the IGMP/MLD Query Interval.
The condition might occur where the gateway that initially sent the
AMT Request dynamically changes its IP address. This might occur due
to a change in wireless networks, a DHCP assignment, or another
network failure. When this occurs, it is no longer possible to
verify the MAC using the source address and source port. Though, in
order to reduce state, it is desirable to tear down the state that
was created with the old source address. A Teardown message with
special considerations for calculating the MAC is described below to
perform this function.
5.3. Protocol Sequence
This description assumes the Gateway can be a host joining as a
receiver or a network device acting as a Gateway when a directly
connected host joins as a receiver.
Protocol sequence for a multicast SSM channel (S1,G1):
o Receiver at AMT site sends IGMPv3/MLDv2 report joining (S1,G1).
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
o Gateway receives report. If it has no tunnel state with a Relay,
it originates an AMT Relay Discovery message addressed to the
Anycast Relay IP address. The AMT Relay Discovery message can be
sent on demand if no relay is known at this time or at startup and
be periodically refreshed.
o The closest Relay topologically receives the AMT Relay Discovery
message and returns the nonce from the Discovery in an AMT Relay
Advertisement message so the Gateway can learn of the Relay's
unique IP address.
o When the Gateway receives the AMT Relay Advertisement message, it
now has an address to use for all subsequent (S,G) entries it will
join on behalf of attached receivers (or itself).
o If the gateway has a valid Response MAC from a previous AMT Query
message, it can send an AMT Membership Update message as described
below. Otherwise, the Gateway sends an AMT Request message to the
Relay's unique IP address to begin the process of joining the
(S,G). The gateway also SHOULD initialize a timer used to send
periodic Requests to a random value from the interval [0, [Query
Interval]] before sending the first periodic report, in order to
prevent startup synchronization.
o The Relay responds to the AMT Request message by returning the
nonce from the Request in a AMT Query message. The Query message
contains an IGMP/MLD QUERY indicating how often the Gateway should
repeat AMT Request messages so the (S,G) state can stay refreshed
in the Relay. The Query message also includes an opaque security
code which is generated locally (with no external coordination).
o When the Gateway receives the AMT Query message it responds by
copying the security code from the AMT Query message into a AMT
Membership Update message. The Update message contains (S1,G1) in
an IGMPv3/MLDv2 formatted packet with an IP header. The nonce
from the AMT Request is also included in the AMT Membership Update
message.
o When the Relay receives the AMT Membership Update, it will add the
tunnel to the Gateway in it's outgoing interface list for it's
(S1,G1) entry stored in the multicast routing table. If the
(S1,G1) entry was created do to this interaction, the multicast
routing protocol running on the Relay will trigger a Join message
towards source S1 to build a native multicast tree in the native
multicast infrastructure.
o As packets are sent from the host S1, they will travel natively
down the multicast tree associated with (S1,G1) in the native
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
multicast infrastructure to the Relay. The Relay will replicate
to all interfaces in it's outgoing interface list as well as the
tunnel outgoing interface, which is encapsulated in a unicast AMT
Multicast Data message.
o When the Gateway receives the AMT Multicast Data message, it will
accept the packet since it was received over the pseudo-interface
associated with the tunnel to the Relay it had attached to, and
forward the packet to the outgoing interfaces joined by any
attached receiver hosts (or deliver the packet to the application
when the Gateway is the receiver).
o If later (S2,G2) is joined by a receiver, a 3-way handshake of
Request/ Query/Update occurs for this entry. The Discovery/
Advertisement exchange is not required.
o To keep the state for (S1,G1) and (S2,G2) alive in the Relay, the
Gateway will send periodic AMT Membership Updates. The Membership
Update can be sent directly if the sender has a valid nonce from a
previous Request. If not, an AMT Request messages should be sent
to solicit a Query Message. When sending a periodic state
refresh, all joined state in the Gateway is packed in the fewest
number of AMT Membership Update messages.
o When the Gateway leaves all (S,G) entries, the Relay can free
resources associated with the tunnel. It is assumed that when the
Gateway would want to join an (S,G) again, it would start the
Discovery/Advertisement tunnel establishment process over again.
This same procedure would be used for receivers who operate in Any-
Source Multicast (ASM) mode.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6. Message Formats
6.1. Use of UDP
All AMT messages are UDP packets.
Messages sent to the Relay are sent to the IANA reserved AMT port
number (Section 9), from a source port uniquely selected by the host
operating system of the Gateway. Messages sent by the Relay are sent
from the IANA reserved AMT port number.
The UDP checksum MUST be valid in all AMT control messages (Relay
Discovery, Relay Advertisement, Membership Request, Membership Query,
Membership Update). Section 6.7 specifies the behavior with
reference to the UDP checksums of AMT IP Multicast Data messages.
6.2. AMT Relay Discovery
The AMT Relay Discovery message is sent from the AMT gateway unicast
address to the AMT Relay Anycast address to discover the unicast
address of an AMT relay.
The payload of the UDP packet contains the following fields.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discovery Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Relay Discovery
6.2.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.2.2. Reserved
A 24-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.2.3. Discovery Nonce
A 32-bit random value generated by the gateway and replayed by the
relay.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6.3. AMT Relay Advertisement
The AMT Relay Advertisement message sent from the AMT relay anycast
address to the source of the discovery message.
The UDP source port is the IANA reserved AMT port number and the UDP
destination port is the source port received in the Discovery
message.
The payload of the UDP packet contains the following fields.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x2 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discovery Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Relay Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Relay Advertisement
6.3.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.3.2. Reserved
A 24-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.3.3. Discovery Nonce
A 32-bit random value generated by the gateway and replayed by the
relay.
6.3.4. Relay Address
The unicast IPv4 or IPv6 address of the AMT relay. The family can be
determined by the length of the Advertisement.
6.4. AMT Request
A Request packet is sent by a Gateway to a Relay to begin a 3-way
handshake for sending an IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener Report or
Leave/Done.
It is sent from the Gateway address to the Relay's unique unicast
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
address.
The UDP source port is uniquely selected by the local host operating
system. It can be different from the source port used in Discovery
messages but does not have to be. The UDP source port must be
consistent across Request and Update messages (see also Section 7.2).
The UDP destination port is the IANA reserved AMT port number.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Request
6.4.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.4.2. Reserved
A 24-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.4.3. Request Nonce
A 32-bit identifier used to distinguish this request.
6.5. AMT Membership Query
An AMT Membership Query packet is sent from the Relay back to the
Gateway to solicit an AMT Membership Update while confirming the
source of the original request. It contains a relay Message
Authentication Code (MAC) that is a cryptographic hash of a private
secret, the originators address, and the request nonce.
It is sent from the destination address received in the Request to
the source address of the Request, i.e. the Relay Address advertised
in the Relay Advertisement message.
The UDP source port is the IANA reserved AMT port number and the UDP
destination port is the source port received in the Request message.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x4 | Flags | Response MAC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Response MAC (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IGMP Membership Query or MLD Listener Query |
| (including IP Header) |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Gateway Port Number | Gateway Address ... | ?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
| ... Gateway Address (ctd) ... | ?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
| ... Gateway Address (ctd) ... | ?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
| ... Gateway Address (ctd) ... | ?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
| ... Gateway Address (ctd) | ?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Membership Query
6.5.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.5.2. Flags
An 8-bit flags field having the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |G|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The "G" flag is set to 1 if Gateway information fields are present in
the Query message (see below Section 6.5.6), and to zero if they are
not.
Other flags are currently unused and reserved: they are sent as zero
and their value is ignored on receipt.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6.5.3. Response MAC
A 48-bit hash generated by the Relay and sent to the Gateway for
inclusion in the AMT Membership Update (see Section 5.2).
6.5.4. Request Nonce
A 32-bit identifier echoed back to the originator to used to identify
the corresponding request (see Section 5.2).
6.5.5. IGMP/MLD Query (including IP Header)
The message contains either an IGMP Query or an MLD Multicast
Listener Query. The IGMP or MLD version sent should default to
IGMPv3 or MLDv2 unless explicitly configured to use IGMPv2 or MLDv1.
The IGMP/MLD Query includes a full IP Header. The IP source address
of the query would match the anycast address on the pseudo interface.
The TTL of the outer IP header should be sufficient to reach the
tunnel endpoint and not mimic the inner IP header TTL which is
typically 1 for IGMP/MLD messages.
6.5.6. Gateway information fields
The "Gateway Port Number" and "Gateway Address" fields are present in
the Query message if, and only if, the "G" flag is set in the Flags
field.
6.5.6.1. Gateway Port Number
A 16-bit field containing a UDP port value.
The Relay sets this field to the value of the UDP source port of the
Request message that triggered the Query message.
6.5.6.2. Gateway Address
A 16-byte field containing the IP source address of the Request
message that triggered this Query message. The field contains an
IPv4-compatible IPv6 address ([RFC4291], section 2.5.5.1) if the
address is an IPv4 address (i.e. the IPv4 address prefixed with 96
bits set to zero), or an IPv6 address.
6.6. AMT Membership Update
An AMT Membership Update is sent to report a membership after a valid
Response MAC has been received. It contains the original IGMP/MLD
Membership/Listener Report or Leave/Done received over the AMT
pseudo-interface including the original IP header. It echoes the
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
Response MAC received in the AMT Membership Query so the respondent
can verify return routability to the originator.
It is sent from the destination address received in the Query to the
source address received in the Query which should both be the same as
the original Request.
The UDP source and destination port numbers should be the same ones
sent in the original Request.
The UDP destination port is the IANA reserved AMT port number and the
UDP source port is the source port used for the Request message.
The Relay is not required to use the IP source address of the IGMP
Membership Report for any particular purpose.
The same Request Nonce and Response MAC can be used across multiple
AMT Membership Update messages without having to send individual AMT
Membership Query messages.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x5 | Reserved | Response MAC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Response MAC (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IGMP or MLD Message (including IP header) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Membership Update
6.6.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.6.2. Reserved
A 8-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.6.3. Response MAC
The 48-bit MAC received in the Membership Query and echoed back in
the Membership Update (see Section 5.2).
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6.6.4. Request Nonce
A 32-bit identifier matching the nonce in the AMT Request (see
Section 5.2).
6.6.5. IGMP/MLD Message (including IP Header)
The message contains either an IGMP Membership Report, an IGMP
Membership Leave, an MLD Multicast Listener Report, or an MLD
Listener Done. The IGMP or MLD version sent should be in function of
the version of the query received in the AMT Membership Query. The
IGMP/MLD Message includes a full IP Header.
6.7. AMT IP Multicast Data
The AMT Data message is a UDP packet encapsulating the IP Multicast
data requested by the originator based on a previous AMT Membership
Update message.
It is sent from the Relay's unique unicast address (destination
address of the Membership update) to the Gateway's unicast address
(source address of the Membership Update).
The UDP source port is the IANA reserved AMT port number and the
destination port should be the same as the source port of the
Membership Update that resulted in the creation of forwarding state
for the encapsulated IP packet.
The UDP checksum SHOULD be zero for AMT IP Multicast Data messages
carried over IPv4, and MAY be zero for AMT IP Multicast Data messages
carried over IPv6 [I-D.ietf-6man-udpchecksums].
The payload of the UDP packet contains the following fields.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x6 | Reserved | IP Multicast Data ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT IP Multicast Data
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
6.7.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.7.2. Reserved
An 8-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.7.3. IP Multicast Data
The original IP Multicast data packet that is being replicated by the
Relay to the Gateway, including the original IP header.
6.8. AMT Teardown
An AMT Teardown is sent by a Gateway after a valid Response MAC has
been received and after the source address that was used to generate
the Response MAC is no longer available for sending packets.
It is sent to the source address received in the original Query which
should be the same as the original Request.
The UDP destination port number should be the same one sent in the
original Request.
An AMT Teardown from the original source address and source port is
NOT valid and should be discarded if received. Use an AMT Membership
Update instead.
In order for the Relay to verify the Teardown message, this message
must contain the original source address and source port in addition
to the Original Request Nonce and Original Response MAC. In
situations where NAT is used, this information can be known by the
Gateway thanks to the optional Gateway information fields in the
Query message (Section 6.5.6). Hence, a Relay supporting the
Teardown mechanism SHOULD include the Gateway information fields in
the Query messages it sends.
On reception of a valid Teardown message, a Relay should remove all
state corresponding to the gateway identified by the (original source
address, original source port) tuple, and stop forwarding all traffic
to this destination.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0x7 | Reserved | Original Response MAC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Response MAC (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Request Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Source Port | Original Source Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Source Address (ctd) ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Original Source Address (ctd) ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Original Source Address (ctd) ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Original Src Addr. (ctd) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AMT Membership Teardown
6.8.1. Type
The type of the message.
6.8.2. Reserved
A 8-bit reserved field. Sent as 0, ignored on receipt.
6.8.3. Original Response MAC
The 48-bit MAC received in the Membership Query.
6.8.4. Original Request Nonce
A 32-bit identifier corresponding to the original Request.
6.8.5. Original Source Port
The 16-bit port number used in the original AMT Request message that
was used to generate the Original Response MAC.
6.8.6. Original Source Address
A 16-byte field containing the IP source address used in the original
AMT Request message that was used to generate the Original Response
MAC of the Request message that triggered this Query message. The
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
field contains an IPv4-compatible IPv6 address ([RFC4291], section
2.5.5.1) if the address is an IPv4 address (i.e. the IPv4 address
prefixed with 96 bits set to zero), or an IPv6 address.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
7. AMT Gateway Details
This section details the behavior of an AMT Gateway, which may be a
router serving an AMT site, or the site may consist of a single host,
serving as its own gateway.
7.1. At Startup Time
At startup time, the AMT gateway will bring up an AMT pseudo-
interface to be used for encapsulation. The gateway needs to
discover an AMT Relay to send Membership Requests. It can send an
AMT Relay Discovery at startup time or wait until it has a group
membership to report. The AMT Relay Discovery message is sent to the
AMT Relay Anycast Address. A unicast address (which is treated as a
link-layer address to the encapsulation interface) is received in the
AMT Relay Advertisement message. The discovery process SHOULD be
done periodically (e.g., once a day) to re-resolve the unicast
address of a close relay. To prevent startup synchronization, the
timer SHOULD use at least 10 percent jitter.
If the gateway is serving as a local router, it SHOULD also function
as an IGMP/MLD Proxy, as described in [RFC4605], with its IGMP/MLD
host-mode interface being the AMT pseudo-interface. This enables it
to translate group memberships on its downstream interfaces into
IGMP/MLD Reports. Hosts receiving multicast packets through an AMT
gateway acting as a proxy should ensure that their M-RIB accepts
multicast packets from the AMT gateway for the sources it is joining.
7.2. Gateway identification
From the point of view of a Relay, a Gateway is identified by the (IP
source address, UDP source port) tuple in Membership Update messages.
If an implementation of Gateway procedure was to use a different UDP
source port and/or IP source address to join or leave different
multicast groups, it would appear to the Relay as distinct Gateways.
For instance, a Relay having forwarding state resulting in the
forwarding of (S,G) to a said gateway identified by a (IP source
address, UDP source port) tuple, will not remove this state if it
receives an AMT Membership Update message from a different (IP source
address, UDP source port) tuple.
It results that a Gateway has to use the same UDP source port for AMT
Request and AMT Update messages related to a same (S,G). A said
Gateway instance is typically expected to use the same UDP source
port and IP source address for all Request and Updates messages for
all multicast groups.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
7.3. Joining Multicast Groups
The IGMP/MLD protocol usually operates by having the Querier
multicast an IGMP/MLD Query message on the link. This behavior does
not work on NBMA links which do not support multicast. Since the set
of gateways is typically unknown to the relay (and potentially quite
large), unicasting the queries is also impractical. The following
behavior is used instead.
Applications residing in a gateway should join groups on the AMT
pseudo-interface, causing IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener Reports to be
sent over that interface. When UDP encapsulating the membership
reports (and in fact any other messages, unless specified otherwise
in this document), the destination address in the outer IP header is
the relay's unicast address. Robustness is provided by the
underlying IGMP/MLD protocol messages sent on the AMT pseudo-
interface. In other words, the gateway does not need to retransmit
IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener Reports and Leave/Done messages received
on the pseudo-interface since IGMP/MLD will already do this. The
gateway simply needs to encapsulate each IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener
Report and Leave/Done message it receives.
However, since periodic IGMP/MLD Membership/Listener Reports are sent
in response to IGMP/MLD Queries, a mechanism to trigger periodic
Membership/Listener Reports and Leave/Done messages is necessary.
The gateway should use a timer to trigger periodic AMT Membership
Updates.
If the gateway is behind a firewall device, the firewall may require
the gateway to periodically refresh the UDP state in the firewall at
a shorter interval than the standard IGMP/MLD Query interval. AMT
Requests can be sent periodically to solicit IGMP/MLD Queries. The
interval at which the AMT Requests are sent should be configurable to
ensure the firewall does not revert to blocking the UDP encapsulated
IP Multicast data packets. When the AMT Query is received, it can be
ignored unless it is time for a periodic AMT Membership Update.
The relay can use the Querier's Robustness Variable (QRV) defined in
[RFC3376] and [RFC3810] to adjust the number of Membership/Listener
Reports that are sent by the host joining the group.
7.4. Responding to Relay Changes
When a gateway determines that its current relay is unreachable
(e.g., upon receipt of an ICMP Unreachable message [RFC0792] for the
relay's unicast address), it may need to repeat relay address
discovery. However, care should be taken not to abandon the current
relay too quickly due to transient network conditions.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
8. AMT Relay Details
8.1. At Startup time
At startup time, the relay router will bring up an NBMA-style AMT
pseudo-interface. It shall also add the AMT Relay Anycast Address on
some interface.
The relay router shall then advertise the AMT Relay Anycast Prefix
into the unicast-only Internet, as if it were a connection to an
external network. When the advertisement is done using BGP, the AS
path leading to the AMT Relay Anycast Prefix shall include the
identifier of the local AS.
The relay router shall also enable IGMPv3/MLDv2 on the AMT pseudo-
interface, except that it shall not multicast Queries (this might be
done, for example, by having the AMT pseudo-device drop them, or by
having the IGMP/MLD module not send them in the first place).
8.2. Receiving Relay Discovery messages sent to the Anycast Address
When a relay receives an AMT Relay Discovery message directed to the
AMT Relay Anycast Address, it should respond with an AMT Relay
Advertisement containing its unicast address. The source and
destination addresses of the advertisement should be the same as the
destination and source addresses of the discovery message
respectively. Further, the nonce in the discovery message MUST be
copied into the advertisement message.
8.3. Receiving Membership Updates from AMT Gateways
The relay operates passively, sending no periodic IGMP/MLD Queries
but simply tracking membership information according to AMT Request/
Query/Membership Update tuples received. As noted in Section 7.2,
the Relay tracks Gateways based on the (IP source address, UDP source
port) tuple. In addition, the relay must also do explicit membership
tracking, as to which gateways on the AMT pseudo-interface have
joined which groups. Once an AMT Membership Update has been
successfully received, it updates the forwarding state for the
appropriate group and source (if provided). When data arrives for
that group, the traffic must be encapsulated, once to each (address,
port) of each gateway which has joined that group or (S,G).
The explicit membership tracking and unicast replication may be done
in any implementation-specific manner. Some examples are:
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
1. The AMT pseudo-device driver might track the group information
and perform the replication at the "link-layer", with no changes
to a pre-existing IGMP/MLD module.
2. The IGMP/MLD module might have native support for explicit
membership tracking, especially if it supports other NBMA-style
interfaces.
If a relay wants to affect the rate at which the AMT Requests are
originated from a gateway, it can tune the membership timeout by
adjusting the Querier's Query Interval Code (QQIC) field in the IGMP/
MLD Query contained within the AMT Membership Query message. The
QQIC field is defined in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810]. However, since the
gateway may need to send AMT Requests frequently enough to prevent
firewall state from timing out, the relay may be limited in its
ability to spread out Requests coming from a gateway by adjusting the
QQIC field.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Anycast Prefix Allocation
The IANA should allocate an IPv4 prefix and an IPv6 prefix dedicated
to the public AMT Relays to advertise to the native multicast
backbone. The prefix length should be determined by the IANA; the
prefix should be large enough to guarantee advertisement in the
default-free BGP networks.
9.1.1. IPv4
A prefix length of 16 will meet this requirement.
9.1.2. IPv6
A prefix length of 32 will meet this requirement. IANA has
previously set aside the range 2001::/16 for allocating prefixes for
this purpose.
9.2. UDP Port number
IANA has previously allocated UDP reserved port number 2268 for AMT
encapsulation.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
10. Security Considerations
The anycast technique introduces a risk that a rogue router or a
rogue AS could introduce a bogus route to the AMT Relay Anycast
prefix, and thus divert the traffic. Network managers have to
guarantee the integrity of their routing to the AMT Relay Anycast
prefix in much the same way that they guarantee the integrity of all
other routes.
Gateways will accept and decapsulate multicast traffic from any
source from which regular unicast traffic is accepted. If this is,
for any reason, felt to be a security risk, then additional source
address based packet filtering MUST be applied: a gateway MUST
discard encapsulated multicast packets if the source address in the
outer header is not the address of the Relay to which the
encapsulated join message was sent. AMT Gateways MUST also drop non-
multicast traffic incoming on an AMT pseudo-interface.
AMT Relays MUST NOT process AMT Data messages.
AMT Relays and Gateways MUST drop IP messages encapsulated in AMT
Query and Update messages that are not IGMP/MLD messages.
Even though a Relay does not need to maintain any state before
completion of the three-way handshake (Section 5.2), if no mitigation
is in place, it is still possible for one host to instantiate a large
amount of Gateways instances that would each join one or more
multicast groups to a Relay, thus resulting in a large amount of
resources being used on the Relay. Thus, AMT Relays MUST be
implemented so as to allow the mitigation of risks of denial of
service attacks on their resources. A Relay SHOULD NOT allow the
instantiation of an unbounded number of AMT pseudo-interfaces for a
said gateway IP address. For instance, an implementation may provide
a way to set a configurable limit on the maximum number of pseudo-
interfaces to a same gateway IP address, with a default value for
this limit being low enough to provide protection, and high enough to
cope with the possibility of an address being shared by multiple
devices.
In the case where a Relay is reaching the situation where it would
stop accepting to instantiate new pseudo-interfaces, it MAY stop
advertising the AMT Relay Anycast address; thanks to the AMT
discovery procedures, this will allow legitimate AMT Gateways to fall
back on another Relay.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
11. Contributors
The following people provided significant contributions to earlier
versions of these specifications:
Dirk Ooms
OneSparrow
Belegstraat 13; 2018 Antwerp; Belgium
EMail: dirk@onesparrow.com
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
12. Acknowledgments
Most of the mechanisms described in this document are based on
similar work done by the NGTrans WG for obtaining automatic IPv6
connectivity without explicit tunnels ("6to4"). Tony Ballardie
provided helpful discussion that inspired this document.
In addition, extensive comments were received from Pekka Savola, Greg
Shepherd, Dino Farinacci, Toerless Eckert, Marshall Eubanks, John
Zwiebel, Lenny Giuliano and Greg Bumgardner.
Juniper Networks was instrumental in funding several versions of this
draft as well as an open source implementation.
Greg Shepherd suggested the inclusion of the AMT Membership Teardown
message based on field experience.
Contributors from AT&T provided useful inputs and ideas that were
integrated into these specifications: Mark Altom, Andy Huang, Tom
Imburgia, Patricia McCrink, Han Nguyen, Doug Nortz and Robert Sayko.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, August 2006.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[I-D.ietf-6man-udpchecksums]
Eubanks, M., "UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets",
draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-00 (work in progress),
March 2011.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC1546] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3053] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6
Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
RFC 3068, June 2001.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007.
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
Authors' Addresses
Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Mohit Talwar
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA
Phone: +1 425 705 3131
Email: mohitt@microsoft.com
Amit Aggarwal
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA
Phone: +1 425 706 0593
Email: amitag@microsoft.com
Lorenzo Vicisano
Qualcomm Inc.
3165 Kifer Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
USA
Email: vicisano@qualcomm.com
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft AMT July 2011
Tom Pusateri
!j
2109 Mountain High Rd.
Wake Forest, NC 27587
USA
Email: pusateri@bangj.com
Thomas Morin
France Telecom - Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22300
France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 3734
Email: thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com
Thaler, et al. Expires January 12, 2012 [Page 36]
