mboned Working Group                                           P. Savola
Internet Draft                                                 CSC/FUNET
Expiration Date: December 2004
                                                             B. Haberman
                                                        Caspian Networks

                                                               June 2004

Embedding the Rendezvous Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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://

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   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 December 2004]                [Page 1]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  ...............................................   3
     1.1.  Background  .............................................   3
     1.2.  Solution  ...............................................   3
     1.3.  Assumptions and Scope  ..................................   4
     1.4.  Terminology  ............................................   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  ...   6
   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  .................................   9
     6.1.  RP Redundancy  ..........................................   9
     6.2.  RP Deployment  ..........................................   9
     6.3.  Guidelines for Assigning IPv6 Addresses to RPs  .........   9
     6.4.  Use as a Substitute for BSR  ............................  10
     6.5.  Controlling the Use of RPs  .............................  10
   7.  The Embedded-RP Group-to-RP Mapping Mechanism  ..............  11
     7.1.  PIM-SM Group-to-RP Mapping  .............................  11
     7.2.  Overview of the Model  ..................................  11
   8.  Scalability Analysis  .......................................  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  ...........................................  13
   10.  Security Considerations  ...................................  14
   11.  References  ................................................  15
     11.1.  Normative References  ..................................  15
     11.2.  Informative References  ................................  15
   Authors' Addresses  .............................................  16
   A.  Discussion about Design Tradeoffs  ..........................  16
   B.  Changes  ....................................................  17
     B.4  Changes since -04  .......................................  17
     B.3  Changes since -03  .......................................  17
     B.2  Changes since -02  .......................................  17
     B.3  Changes since -01  .......................................  18
     B.4  Changes since -00  .......................................  18

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 2]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 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, as noted

   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.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 3]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   This scheme obviates the need for MSDP, and the routers are not
   required to include any multicast configuration, except when they act
   as an RP.

   This memo updates the addressing format presented in RFC 3306.

1.3. Assumptions and Scope

   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

   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. Terminology

   Embedded-RP behaves as if all the members of the group were all
   intra-domain to the information distribution. However, as it gives a
   solution for the global IPv6 multicast Internet, spanning multiple
   administrative domains, we say it is a solution for inter-domain

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   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

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 4]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

        |   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.)

3. Modified Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format

   This memo specifies a modification to the unicast-prefix-based
   address format:

      1. If the two high-order bits in "flgs" are set to 01, the address
         of the RP is embedded in the multicast address, as described in
         this memo.

      2. If the two high-order bit in "flgs" are set to 01, interpret
         the last low-order 4 bits of "reserved" field as signifying the
         RP interface ID ("RIID"), as described in this memo.

   The encoding and the protocol mode used when the two high-order bit
   in "flgs" are set to 11 is intentionally unspecified until such time
   that the highest-order bit is defined.

   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.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 5]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

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:

     o it MUST be a multicast address and have R, P, and T flag bits set
       to 1 -- that is, be part of the prefix FF70::/12 (note that
       FFF0::/12 is unspecified),

     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 3 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.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 6]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   "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

   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 2^4-1 = 15 different RPs
   (as RIID=0 is reserved, see section 6.3).  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, by placing it on an existing
   subnet, e.g., 2001:DB8:BEEF:FEED::/64.

   In that case, the group addresses would be 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 ("y" could be anything
   from 1 to F, as 0 must not be used).

5.2. Example 2

   As in Example 1, the network administrator of 2001:DB8::/32 wants to
   set up the RP, but to make it more flexible, wants to place it on a
   specifically routed subnet, and wants to keep larger address space
   for group allocations.  That is, the administrator selects the least
   specific part of the prefix, with plen=32, and the group addresses
   will be of the form:

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 7]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004


   Where "x" is the multicast scope, "y" the interface ID of the RP
   address, and "zzzz:zzzz" will be assignable to anyone. In this case,
   the address of the RP would be:


   The address 2001:DB8::y/128 is assigned to a router as a loopback
   address and injected to the routing system; if the network
   administrator sets up only one or a couple of RPs (and e.g., not one
   RP per subnet), this approach may be preferable to the one described
   in Example 1.

5.3. Example 3

   As in Example 2, 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
   group addresses to be consistent with the unicast prefix allocations.

5.4. Example 4

   In the network of Examples 1, 2 and 3, 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".

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 8]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

6. Operational Considerations

   This section 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].

   The most feasible candidate for RP failover is using PIM for Anycast
   RP 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
   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 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].

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]                [Page 9]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   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 2 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.

6.5. Controlling the Use of RPs

   Compared to the MSDP inter-domain ASM model, the control and
   management of who can use an RP and how changes slightly and deserves
   explicit discussion.

   MSDP advertisement filtering typically includes at least two
   capabilities: being able to filter who is able to create a global
   session ("source filtering"), and being able to filter which groups
   should be globally accessible ("group filtering").  These are done to
   prevent local groups from being advertised to the outside, or
   preventing unauthorized senders from creating global groups.

   However, such controls do not yet block the outsiders from using such
   groups, as they could join the groups even without Source Active
   advertisement with an (S,G) Join by guessing/learning the source
   and/or the group address.  For proper protection, one should set up,
   e.g., PIM multicast scoping borders at the border routers.
   Therefore, embedded-RP has by default roughtly equivalent level of
   "protection" as MSDP with SA filtering.

   A new issue with control comes from the fact that nodes in a "foreign
   domain" may register to an RP, or send PIM Join to an RP. (These have
   been possible in the past as well, to a degree, but only through
   willfull attempts or purposeful RP configuration at DRs.)  The main
   threat in this case is that an outsider illegitimately uses the RP to
   host his/hers own group(s).  This can be mitigated to an extent by
   filtering which groups or group ranges are allowed at the RP; more
   specific controls are beyond the scope of this memo.  Note that this
   does not seem to be a serious threat in the first place as anyone
   with a /64 prefix can create an own RP, without having to
   illegitimately get it from someone else.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 10]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

7. The Embedded-RP Group-to-RP Mapping Mechanism

   This section specifies the group-to-RP mapping mechanism for Embedded

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

   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
   with prefix FF70::/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 RP, the
   DR adjacent to the senders and any router on the path from any
   receiver to the RP.  Paths for Shortest Path Tree (SPT) formation and
   Register-Stop do not require the support, as those are accomplished
   with an (S,G) Join.

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.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 11]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   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
   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 every group formed its own Internet-wide PIM domain, with the
   group mapping to a single RP, wherever the receivers or senders are.
   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.  This is especially important with large
   multicast groups where there are a lot of heavy senders --
   particularly if implementations do not handle unicast-decapsulation

   With IPv4 ASM multicast, there is roughly two kinds of Internet-wide
   state: MSDP (propagated everywhere), and multicast routing state (on
   the receiver or sender branches).  The former is eliminated, but 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 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 tree construction (i.e., multicast routing) by
   removing the RP for senders and receivers in foreign domains, and

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 12]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   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 the deployed failover
   or redundancy mechanisms (e.g., BSR, Anycast-RP with MSDP) cannot be
   used as-is.  However, Anycast-RP using PIM provides equal redundancy;
   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 manually
   configuring RPs and DRs (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
   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

   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.  In particular, Pavlin Radoslavov, Dino
   Farinacci, Nidhi Bhaskar, and Jerome Durand provided good comments
   during and after WG last call.  The whole MboneD working group is
   also acknowledged for the continued support and comments.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 13]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

10. Security Considerations

   The addresses of RPs are encoded in the multicast addresses -- 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.  Both the sender- and receiver-based attacks are
   described at more length in [PIMSEC].

   Additionally the implementation SHOULD also allow manual
   configuration of which multicast prefixes are allowed to be used.
   This can be used to limit the use of the RP to designated groups
   only.  In some cases, it is desirable to be able to restrict (at the
   RP) which unicast addresses are allowed to send or join to a group.
   (However, note that Join/Prune messages would still leave state in
   the network, and Register messages can be spoofed  [PIMSEC].)
   Obviously, these controls are only possible at the RP, not at the
   intermediate routers or the DR.

   It is RECOMMENDED that routers supporting this specification do not
   act as RPs unless explicitly configured to do so; as becoming an RP
   does not require any advertisement (e.g., through BSR or manually),
   otherwise any router could potentially become an RP (and be abused as
   such).  Further, multicast groups or group ranges to-be-served MAY
   need to be explicitly configured at the RPs, to protect from being
   used unwillingly.  Note that the more specific controls (e.g.,
   "insider-must-create" or "invite-outsiders" models) to who is allowed
   to use the groups are beyond the scope of this memo.

   Excluding internal-only groups from MSDP advertisements does not
   protect the groups from outsiders, only offers security by obscurity;
   embedded-RP offers similar level of protection.  When real protection
   is desired, e.g., PIM scoping should be set up at the borders; this
   is described at more length in Section 6.5.

   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

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 14]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   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

   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

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.

   [MSDP]      Meyer, D., Fenner, B, (Eds.), "Multicast Source
               Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 15]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   [PIMSEC]    Savola, P., Lehtonen, R., Meyer, D., "PIM-SM Multicast
               Routing Security Issues and Enhancements",
               work-in-progress, draft-ietf-mboned-mroutesec-00.txt,
               April 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
   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

   The document only specifies FF70::/12 for now; if/when the upper-most
   bit is used, one must specify how FFF0::/12 applies to Embedded-RP.
   For example, a different mode of PIM or another protocol might use
   that range, in contrast to FF70::/12, as currently specified, being
   for PIM-SM only.

   Instead of using flags bits ("FF70::/12"), one could have used the
   left-most reserved bits instead ("FF3x:8000::/17").

   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.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 16]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   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
   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].

B. Changes

   [[ RFC-Editor: please remove before publication ]]

  B.4 Changes since -04

     o Only update the boilerplates.

  B.3 Changes since -03

     o Further clarifications, especially regarding Inter/intra-domain
     o Recommend more strongly that multicast groups can be configured,
       and that they should be explicitly configured, to protect against
     o Note that more detailed controls on who can use a multicast
       address are out of scope.
     o Add discussion about controls/manageability and how that has
       changed from the MSDP model.

  B.2 Changes since -02

     o Clarified security considerations, wrt. RPs being abused by third
       parties and policy controls at the RP.
     o Clarified that only RPs, DRs next to sources sending to embedded-
       RP groups, and routers between the receivers and the RPs need to
       have support this mapping.
     o Try to be clearer that FF70::/12 is meant for PIM-SM at the
       moment, while FFF0::/12 is unspecified.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 17]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

     o Minor miscellaneous changes.

  B.3 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.4 Changes since -00

     o Lots of editorial cleanups, or cleanups without techinical
     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
     o Add a MUST that embedded-RP mappings must be honored by

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
   be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 18]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-05.txt         June 2004

   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Savola & Haberman        [Expires December 2004]               [Page 19]