mboned Working Group P. Savola
Internet Draft CSC/FUNET
Expiration Date: September 2004
B. Haberman
Caspian Networks
March 2004
Embedding the Rendezvous Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address
draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of 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.
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This memo defines an address allocation policy in which the address
of the Rendezvous Point (RP) is encoded in an IPv6 multicast group
address. For Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM),
this can be seen as a specification of a group-to-RP mapping
mechanism. This allows an easy deployment of scalable inter-domain
multicast, and simplifies the intra-domain multicast configuration as
well. This memo updates the addressing format presented in RFC 3306.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 3
1.1. Background ............................................. 3
1.2. Solution ............................................... 3
1.3. Assumptions and Scope .................................. 4
1.4. Keywords ............................................... 4
2. Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format ........................ 4
3. Modified Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format ............... 5
4. Embedding the Address of the RP in the Multicast Address ... 5
5. Examples ................................................... 7
5.1. Example 1 .............................................. 7
5.2. Example 2 .............................................. 7
5.3. Example 3 .............................................. 8
5.4. Example 4 .............................................. 8
6. Operational Considerations ................................. 8
6.1. RP Redundancy .......................................... 8
6.2. RP Deployment .......................................... 8
6.3. Guidelines for Assigning IPv6 Addresses to RPs ......... 9
6.4. Use as a Substitute for BSR ............................ 9
7. The Embedded-RP Group-to-RP Mapping Mechanism .............. 9
7.1. PIM-SM Group-to-RP Mapping ............................. 9
7.2. Overview of the Model .................................. 10
8. Scalability Analysis ....................................... 11
9. Acknowledgements ........................................... 12
10. Security Considerations ................................... 12
11. References ................................................ 13
11.1. Normative References .................................. 13
11.2. Informative References ................................ 13
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 14
A. Discussion about Design Tradeoffs .......................... 14
B. Changes .................................................... 15
B.1 Changes since -01 ....................................... 15
B.2 Changes since -00 ....................................... 15
Intellectual Property Statement ................................ 16
Full Copyright Statement ....................................... 16
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
As has been noticed [V6MISSUES], there exists a deployment problem
with global, interdomain IPv6 multicast: PIM-SM [PIM-SM] RPs have no
way of communicating the information about (active) multicast sources
to other multicast domains, as Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
(MSDP) [MSDP] has not been, on purpose, specified for IPv6.
Therefore the whole interdomain Any Source Multicast model is
rendered unusable; Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM] avoids these
problems but is not a complete solution for several reasons.
Further, it has been noted that there are some problems with the
support and deployment of mechanisms SSM would require [V6MISSUES]:
it seems unlikely that SSM could be usable as the only interdomain
multicast routing mechanism in the short term.
1.2. Solution
This memo describes a multicast address allocation policy in which
the address of the RP is encoded in the IPv6 multicast group address,
and specifies a PIM-SM group-to-RP mapping to use the encoding,
leveraging and extending unicast-prefix -based addressing [RFC3306].
This mechanism not only provides a simple solution for IPv6
interdomain Any Source Multicast (ASM) but can be used as a simple
solution for IPv6 intradomain ASM with scoped multicast addresses as
well. It can also be used as an automatic RP discovery mechanism in
those deployment scenarios which would have previously used the
Bootstrap Router protocol (BSR) [BSR].
The solution consists of three elements:
o A specification of a subrange of [RFC3306] IPv6 multicast group
addresses defined by setting one previously unused bit of the
Flags field to "1",
o A specification of the mapping by which such a group address
encodes the RP address that is to be used with this group, and
o A description of operational procedures to operate ASM with PIM-
SM on these IPv6 multicast groups.
Addresses in the subrange will be called embedded-RP addresses.
This scheme obviates the need for MSDP, and the routers are not
required to include any multicast configuration, except when they act
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
as an RP.
This memo updates the addressing format presented in RFC 3306.
1.3. Assumptions and Scope
In general, a 128-bit RP address can't be embedded into a 128-bit
group address with space left to carry the group identity itself. An
appropriate form of encoding is thus defined by requiring that the
Interface-IDs of RPs in the embedded-RP range can be assigned to be a
specific value.
If these assumptions can't be followed, either operational procedures
and configuration must be slightly changed or this mechanism can not
be used.
The assignment of multicast addresses is outside the scope of this
document; it is up to the RP and applications to ensure that group
addresses are unique using some unspecified method. However, the
mechanisms are very probably similar to ones used with [RFC3306].
Similarly, RP failure management methods, such as Anycast-RP, are out
of scope for this document. These do not work without additional
specification or deployment. This is covered briefly in Section 6.1.
1.4. Keywords
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].
2. Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format
As described in [RFC3306], the multicast address format is as
follows:
| 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
|11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | network prefix | group ID |
+--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+
Where flgs are "0011". (The first two bits have been yet undefined,
sent as zero and ignored on receipt.)
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
3. Modified Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format
This memo specifies a modification to the unicast-prefix-based
address format:
1. If the second high-order bit in "flgs" is set to 1, the address
of the RP is embedded in the multicast address, as described in
this memo.
2. If the second high-order bit in "flgs" is set to 1, interpret
the last low-order 4 bits of "reserved" field as signifying the
RP interface ID ("RIID"), as described in this memo.
In consequence, the address format becomes:
| 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 64 | 32 |
+--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+
|11111111|flgs|scop|rsvd|RIID| plen | network prefix | group ID |
+--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+
+-+-+-+-+
flgs is a set of 4 flags: |0|R|P|T|
+-+-+-+-+
R = 1 indicates a multicast address that embeds the address on the
RP. Then P MUST be set to 1, and consequently T MUST be set to 1, as
specified in [RFC3306].
In the case that R = 1, the last 4 bits of the previously reserved
field are interpreted as embedding the RP interface ID, as specified
in this memo.
R = 0 indicates a multicast address that does not embed the address
of the RP and follows the semantics defined in [ADDRARCH] and
[RFC3306]. In this context, the value of "RIID" MUST be sent as zero
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
4. Embedding the Address of the RP in the Multicast Address
The address of the RP can only be embedded in unicast-prefix -based
ASM addresses.
That is, to identify whether an address is a multicast address as
specified in this memo and to be processed any further, it must
satisfy all of the below:
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
o it MUST be a multicast address and have R, P, and T flag bits set
to 1 (that is, be part of the prefixes FF70::/12 or FFF0::/12),
o "plen" MUST NOT be 0 (ie. not SSM), and
o "plen" MUST NOT be greater than 64.
The address of the RP can be obtained from a multicast address
satisfying the above criteria by taking the two steps:
1. copy the first "plen" bits of the "network prefix" to a zeroed
128-bit address structure, and
2. replace the last 4 bits with the contents of "RIID".
These two steps could be illustrated as follows:
| 20 bits | 4 | 8 | 64 | 32 |
+---------+----+----+----------------+----------+
|xtra bits|RIID|plen| network prefix | group ID |
+---------+----+----+----------------+----------+
|| \\ vvvvvvvvvvv
|| ``====> copy plen bits of "network prefix"
|| +------------+------------------------+
|| | network pre| 0000000000000000000000 |
|| +------------+------------------------+
\\
``=================> copy RIID to the last 4 bits
+------------+---------------------+--+
| network pre| 0000000000000000000 |ID|
+------------+---------------------+--+
One should note that there are several operational scenarios (see
Example 2 below) when [RFC3306] statement "all non-significant bits
of the network prefix field SHOULD be zero" is ignored. This is to
allow multicast group address allocations to be consistent with
unicast prefixes, while the multicast addresses would still use the
RP associated with the network prefix.
"plen" higher than 64 MUST NOT be used as that would overlap with the
high-order bits of multicast group-id.
When processing an encoding to get the RP address, the multicast
routers MUST perform at least the same address validity checks to the
calculated RP address as to one received via other means (like BSR
[BSR] or MSDP for IPv4). At least fe80::/10, ::/16, and ff00::/8
MUST be excluded. This is particularly important as the information
is obtained from an untrusted source, i.e., any Internet user's
input.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
One should note that the 4 bits reserved for "RIID" set the upper
bound for RPs for the combination of scope, network prefix, and group
ID -- without varying any of these, you can have 4 bits worth of
different RPs. However, each of these is an IPv6 group address of
its own (i.e., there can be only one RP per multicast address).
5. Examples
Four examples of multicast address allocation and resulting group-to-
RP mappings are described here, to better illustrate the
possibilities provided by the encoding.
5.1. Example 1
The network administrator of 2001:DB8::/32 wants to set up an RP for
the network and all the customers. (S)he chooses network
prefix=2001:DB8 and plen=32, and wants to use this addressing
mechanism. The multicast addresses (s)he will be able to use are of
the form:
FF7x:y20:2001:DB8:zzzz:zzzz:<group-id>
Where "x" is the multicast scope, "y" the interface ID of the RP
address, and "zzzz:zzzz" will be freely assignable to anyone. In this
case, the address of the RP would be:
2001:DB8::y
(and "y" could be anything from 1 to F, as 0 must not be used); the
address 2001:DB8::y/128 is added on a router as a loopback address
and injected to the routing system.
5.2. Example 2
As in Example 1, the network administrator can also allocate
multicast addresses like "FF7x:y20:2001:DB8:DEAD::/80" to some of
customers. In this case the RP address would still be "2001:DB8::y".
Note the second rule of deriving the RP address: the "plen" field in
the multicast address, 0x20 = 32, refers to the length of "network
prefix" field considered when obtaining the RP address. In this
case, only the first 32 bits of the network prefix field, "2001:DB8"
are preserved: the value of "plen" takes no stance on actual
unicast/multicast prefix lengths allocated or used in the networks,
here from 2001:DB8:DEAD::/48.
In short, this distinction allows more flexible RP address
configuration in the scenarios where it is desirable to have the
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
group addresses to be consistent with the unicast prefix allocations.
5.3. Example 3
In the network of Examples 1 and 2, the network admin sets up
addresses for use by their customers, but an organization wants to
have their own PIM-SM domain. The organization can pick multicast
addresses like "FF7x:y30:2001:DB8:BEEF::/80", and then their RP
address would be "2001:DB8:BEEF::y".
5.4. Example 4
In the above networks, if the administrator wants to specify the RP
to be in a non-zero /64 subnet, (s)he could always use something like
"FF7x:y40:2001:DB8:BEEF:FEED::/96", and then their RP address would
be "2001:DB8:BEEF:FEED::y". There are still 32 bits of multicast
group-id's to assign to customers and self.
6. Operational Considerations
This desction describes the major operational considerations for
those deploying this mechanism.
6.1. RP Redundancy
A technique called "Anycast RP" is used within a PIM-SM domain to
share an address and multicast state information between a set of
RP's mainly for redundancy purposes. Typically, MSDP has been used
for that as well [ANYCASTRP]. There are also other approaches, like
using PIM for sharing this information [ANYPIMRP].
RP failover cannot be used with this specification without additional
mechanisms or techniques such as MSDP, PIM-SM extensions, or
"anycasting" (i.e., the shared-unicast model [ANYCAST]) the RP
address in the IGP without state sharing (depending on the redundancy
requirements, this may or may not be enough, though). However, the
redundancy mechanisms are outside of the scope of this memo.
6.2. RP Deployment
As there is no need to share inter-domain state with MSDP, each DR
connecting multicast sources could act as an RP without scalability
concerns about setting up and maintaining MSDP sessions.
This might be particularly attractive when concerned about RP
redundancy. In the case where the DR close to a major source for a
group acts as the RP, a certain amount of fate-sharing properties can
be obtained without using any RP failover mechanisms: if the DR goes
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
down, the multicast transmission may not work anymore in any case.
Along the same lines, it's may also be desirable to distribute the RP
responsibilities to multiple RPs. As long as different RPs serve
different groups, this is is trivial: each group could map to a
different RP (or sufficiently many different RPs that the load on one
RP is not a problem). However, load sharing one group faces the
similar challenges as Anycast-RP.
6.3. Guidelines for Assigning IPv6 Addresses to RPs
With this mechanism, the RP can be given basically any network prefix
up to /64. The interface identifier will have to be manually
configured to match "RIID".
RIID = 0 must not be used as using it would cause ambiguity with the
Subnet-Router Anycast Address [ADDRARCH].
If an administrator wishes to use an RP address that does not conform
to the addressing topology but is still from the network provider's
prefix (e.g., an additional loopback address assigned on a router, as
described in example 1 in Section 5.1), that address can be injected
into the routing system via a host route.
6.4. Use as a Substitute for BSR
With embedded-RP, use of BSR or other RP configuration mechanisms
throughout the PIM domain is not necessary, as each group address
specifies the RP to be used.
7. The Embedded-RP Group-to-RP Mapping Mechanism
This section specifies the group-to-RP mapping mechanism works for
Embedded RP.
7.1. PIM-SM Group-to-RP Mapping
The only PIM-SM modification required is implementing this mechanism
as one group-to-RP mapping method.
The implementation will have to recognize the address format and
derive and use the RP address using the rules in Section 4. This
information is used at least when performing Reverse Path Forwarding
(RPF) lookups, when processing Join/Prune messages, or performing
Register-encapsulation.
To avoid loops and inconsistancies, the group-to-RP mapping specified
in this memo MUST be used for all embedded-RP groups (i.e., addresses
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
with prefix FF70::/12 or FFF0::/12).
It is worth noting that compared to the other group-to-RP mapping
mechanisms, which can be precomputed, the embedded-RP mapping must be
redone for every new IPv6 group address which would map to a
different RP. For efficiency, the results may be cached in an
implementation-specific manner, to avoid computation for every
embedded-RP packet.
This group-to-RP mapping mechanism must be supported by the DR
adjacent to the senders and any router on the path from any receiver
to the RP. Further, as the switch-over to Shortest Path Tree (SPT)
is also possible, it must be supported on the path between the
receivers and the senders as well. It also must be supported by any
router on the path from any sender to the RP -- in case the RP issues
a Register-Stop and Joins the sources. So, in practice, the
mechanism must be supported by all routers on any path between the
RP, receivers, and senders.
7.2. Overview of the Model
This section gives a high-level, non-normative overview of how
Embedded RP operates, as specified in the previous section.
The steps when a receiver wishes to join a group are:
1. A receiver finds out a group address from some means (e.g., SDR
or a web page).
2. The receiver issues an MLD Report, joining the group.
3. The receiver's DR will initiate the PIM-SM Join process towards
the RP encoded in the multicast address, irrespective of
whether it is in the "local" or "remote" PIM domain.
The steps when a sender wishes to send to a group are:
1. A sender finds out a group address using an unspecified method
(e.g, by contacting the administrator for group assignment or
using a multicast address assignment protocol).
2. The sender sends to the group.
3. The sender's DR will send the packets unicast-encapsulated in
PIM-SM Register-messages to the RP address encoded in the
multicast address (in the special case that DR is the RP, such
sending is only conceptual).
In fact, all the messages go as specified in [PIM-SM] -- embedded-RP
just acts as a group-to-RP mapping mechanism; instead of obtaining
the address of the RP from local configuration or configuration
protocols (e.g., BSR), it is derived transparently from the encoded
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
multicast address.
8. Scalability Analysis
Interdomain MSDP model for connecting PIM-SM domains is mostly
hierarchical in configuration and deployment, but flat with regard to
information distribution. The embedded-RP inter-domain model behaves
as if all of the Internet was a single PIM domain, with just one RP
per group. So, the inter-domain multicast becomes a flat, RP-
centered topology. The scaling issues are described below.
Previously foreign sources sent the unicast-encapsulated data to
their local RP, now they do so to the foreign RP "responsible" for
the specific group (i.e., the prefix where the group address was
derived from). This is especially important with large multicast
groups where there are a lot of heavy senders -- particularly if
implementations do not handle unicast-decapsulation well.
This model increases the amount of Internet-wide multicast state
slightly: the backbone routers might end up with (*, G) and (S, G,
rpt) state between receivers (and past receivers, for PIM Prunes) and
the RP, in addition to (S, G) states between the receivers and
senders, if SPT is used. However, the traditional ASM model also
requires MSDP state to propagate everywhere in inter-domain, so the
total amount of state is smaller.
The embedded-RP model is practically identical in both inter-domain
and intra-domain cases to the traditional PIM-SM in intra-domain. On
the other hand, PIM-SM has been deployed (in IPv4) in inter-domain
using MSDP; compared to that inter-domain model, this specification
simplifies the multicast routing by removing the RP for senders and
receivers in foreign domains, and eliminating the MSDP information
distribution.
As the address of the RP is tied to the multicast address, the RP
failure management becomes more difficult, as failover or redundancy
mechanisms (e.g., BSR, Anycast-RP with MSDP) cannot be used as-is.
On the other hand, Anycast-RP using PIM could be used. This
described briefly in Section 6.1.
The PIM-SM specification states, "Any RP address configured or
learned MUST be a domain-wide reachable address". What "reachable"
precisely means is not clear, even without embedded-RP. This
statement cannot be proven especially with the foreign RPs as one can
not even guarantee that the RP exists. Instead of configuring RPs
and DRs with a manual process (configuring a non-existent RP was
possible though rare), with this specification the hosts and users
using multicast indirectly specify the RP themselves, lowering the
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
expectancy of the RP reachability. This is a relatively significant
problem but not much different from the current multicast deployment:
e.g., MLDv2 (S,G) joins, whether ASM or SSM, yield the same result
[PIMSEC].
Being able to join/send to remote RPs raises security concerns that
are considered separately, but it has an advantage too: every group
has a "responsible RP" which is able to control (to some extent) who
are able to send to the group.
A more extensive description and comparison of the inter-domain
multicast routing models (traditional ASM with MSDP, embedded-RP,
SSM) and their security properties has been described in [PIMSEC].
9. Acknowledgements
Jerome Durand commented on an early draft of this memo. Marshall
Eubanks noted an issue regarding short plen values. Tom Pusateri
noted problems with an earlier SPT-join approach. Rami Lehtonen
pointed out issues with the scope of SA-state and provided extensive
commentary. Nidhi Bhaskar gave the draft a thorough review.
Toerless Eckert, Hugh Holbrook, and Dave Meyer provided very
extensive feedback. The whole MboneD working group is also
acknowledged for the continued support and comments.
10. Security Considerations
The address of the RP is encoded in the multicast address -- and thus
become more visible as single points of failure. Even though this
does not significantly affect the multicast routing security, it may
expose the RP to other kinds of attacks. The operators are
encouraged to pay special attention to securing these routers. See
Section 6.1 on considerations regarding failover and Section 6.2 on
placement of RPs leading to a degree of fate-sharing properties.
As any RP will have to accept PIM-SM Join/Prune/Register messages
from any DR, this might cause a potential DoS attack scenario.
However, this can be mitigated by the fact that the RP can discard
all such messages for all multicast addresses that do not encode the
address of the RP. The implementation MAY also allow manual
configuration of which multicast addresses or prefixes embedding the
RP could be used.
In a similar fashion, when a receiver joins to an RP, the DRs must
accept similar PIM-SM messages back from RPs. However, this is not a
considerable threat.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
One should observe that the embedded-RP threat model is actually
rather similar to SSM; both mechanisms significantly reduce the
threats at the sender side. On the receiver side, the threats are
somewhat comparable, as an attacker could do an MLDv2 (S,G) join
towards a non-existent source, which the local RP could not block
based on the MSDP information.
The implementation MUST perform at least the same address validity
checks to the embedded-RP address as to one received via other means;
at least fe80::/10, ::/16, and ff00::/8 should be excluded. This is
particularly important as the information is derived from the
untrusted source (i.e., any user in the Internet), not from the local
configuration.
A more extensive description and comparison of the inter-domain
multicast routing models (traditional ASM with MSDP, embedded-RP,
SSM) and their security properties has been done separately in
[PIMSEC].
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[ADDRARCH] Hinden, R., Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC3513, April 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3306] Haberman, B., Thaler, D., "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6
Multicast Addresses", RFC3306, August 2002.
11.2. Informative References
[ANYCAST] Hagino, J., Ettikan, K., "An analysis of IPv6
anycast", work-in-progress,
draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt, June 2003.
[ANYCASTRP] Kim, D. et al, "Anycast RP mechanism using PIM and
MSDP", RFC 3446, January 2003.
[ANYPIMRP] Farinacci, D., Cai, Y., "Anycast-RP using PIM",
work-in-progress, draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-00.txt,
November 2003.
[BSR] Fenner, B., et al., "Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for
PIM Sparse Mode", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-pim-sm-
bsr-03.txt, February 2003.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
[MSDP] Meyer, D., Fenner, B, (Eds.), "Multicast Source
Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.
[PIMSEC] Savola, P., Lehtonen, R., Meyer, D., "PIM-SM Multicast
Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
work-in-progress, draft-savola-mboned-mroutesec-00.txt,
January 2004.
[PIM-SM] Fenner, B. et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast -
Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised),
work-in-progress, draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-09.txt,
February 2004.
[SSM] Holbrook, H. et al, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP",
work-in-progress, draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt,
October 2003.
[V6MISSUES] Savola, P., "IPv6 Multicast Deployment Issues",
work-in-progress, draft-savola-v6ops-multicast-
issues-03.txt, February 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Pekka Savola
CSC/FUNET
Espoo, Finland
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Brian Haberman
Caspian Networks
One Park Drive, Suite 300
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EMail: brian@innovationslab.net
Phone: +1-919-949-4828
A. Discussion about Design Tradeoffs
It has been argued that instead of allowing the operator to specify
RIID, the value could be pre-determined (e.g., "1"). However, this
has not been adopted, as this eliminates address assignment
flexibility from the operator.
Values 64 < "plen" < 96 would overlap with upper bits of the
multicast group-id; due to this restriction, "plen" must not exceed
64 bits. This is in line with RFC 3306.
The embedded-RP addressing could be used to convey other information
(other than RP address) as well, for example, what should be the RPT
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
threshold for PIM-SM. These could be, whether feasible or not,
encoded in the RP address somehow, or in the multicast group address.
In any case, such modifications are beyond the scope of this memo.
For the cases where the RPs do not exist or are unreachable, or too
much state is being generated to reach in a resource exhaustion DoS
attack, some forms of rate-limiting or other mechanisms could be
deployed to mitigate the threats while trying not to disturb the
legitimate usage. However, as the threats are generic, they are
considered out of scope and discussed separately in [PIMSEC].
The mechanism is not usable with Bidirectional PIM without protocol
extensions, as pre-computing the Designated Forwarder is not
possible.
B. Changes
[[ RFC-Editor: please remove before publication ]]
B.1 Changes since -01
o Lots of editorial cleanups and some reorganization, without
technical changes.
o Remove the specification that RIID=0 SHOULD NOT be accepted, but
state that they "must not" be used (implementation vs.
operational wording).
o Specify that the RP address MUST NOT be of prefixes fe80::/10,
::/16, or ff00::/8.
B.2 Changes since -00
o Lots of editorial cleanups, or cleanups without techinical
changes.
o Reinforce the notion of Embedded RP just being a group-to-RP
mapping mechanism (causing substantive rewriting in section 7);
highlight the fact that precomputing the group-to-RP mapping is
not possible.
o Add (a bit) more text on RP redundancy and deployment tradeoffs
wrt. RPs becoming SPoF.
o Clarify the usability/scalability issues in section 8.
o Clarify the security issues in Sections 8, Security
Considerations and Appendix A, mainly by referring to a separate
document.
o Add a MUST that embedded-RP mappings must be honored by
implementations.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
Intellectual Property 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 BCP-11. 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.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
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 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 assignees.
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
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-02.txt March 2004
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Savola & Haberman [Expires September 2004] [Page 17]
