INTERNET-DRAFT                                    M. McBride
                                                   J. Meylor
                                                    D. Meyer
Category                               Best Current Practice
Expires: September 2004                           March 2004

    Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Deployment Scenarios

Status of this Document

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   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-

   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

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

   This document is a product of the MBONED Working Group.  Comments
   should be addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                                      [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004


   This document describes best current practices for intra-domain and
   inter-domain deployment of the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
   (MSDP) in conjunction with Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                                      [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

                           Table of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    1.1. BCP, Experimental Protocols and Normative References. . . .   5
   2. Inter-domain MSDP Peering Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    2.1. Peering between PIM Border Routers. . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    2.2. Peering between Non-Border Routers. . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
    2.3. MSDP Peering without BGP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
    2.4. MSDP Peering at a Multicast Exchange. . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3. Intra-domain MSDP Peering Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
    3.1. Peering between MSDP and MBGP Configured Routers. . . . . .  10
    3.2. MSDP Peer is not BGP Peer (or no BGP Peer). . . . . . . . .  11
    3.3. Hierarchical Mesh Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
    3.4. MSDP and Route Reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
    3.5. MSDP and Anycast RPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    4.1. Filtering SA messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
    4.2. SA message state limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
    7.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
    7.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8. Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                                      [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

1.  Introduction

   MSDP [RFC3618] is used primarily in two deployment scenarios:

   o Between PIM Domains

     MSDP can be used between Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse
     Mode (PIM-SM) [PIM-SM] domains to convey information
     about active sources available in other domains. MSDP peering
     used in such cases is generally one to one peering, and
     utilizes the deterministic peer-RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding)
     rules described in the MSDP specification (i.e., does not use
     mesh-groups). Peerings can be aggregated on a single MSDP
     peer. Such a peer can typically have from one to hundreds of
     peerings, which is similar in scale to BGP peerings.

   o Within a PIM Domain

     MSDP is often used between Anycast Rendezvous Points
     (Anycast-RPs) [RFC3446] within a PIM domain to synchronize
     information about the active sources being served by each
     Anycast-RP peer (by virtue of IGP reachability). MSDP peering
     used in this scenario is typically based on MSDP mesh groups,
     where anywhere from two to tens of peers can comprise a given
     mesh group, although more than ten is not typical. One or more
     of these mesh-group peers may then also have additional
     one-to-one peering with MSDP peers outside that PIM domain for
     discovery of external sources. MSDP for anycast-RP without
     external MSDP peering is a valid deployment option and common.

   Current best practice for MSDP deployment utilizes PIM-SM and the
   Border Gateway Protocol with multi-protocol extensions (MBGP)
   [RFC1771, RFC2858]. This document outlines how these protocols work
   together to provide an intra-domain and inter-domain Any Source
   Multicast (ASM) service.

   The PIM-SM specification assumes that SM operates only in one PIM
   domain. MSDP is used to enable the use of multiple PIM domains by
   distributing the required information about active multicast sources
   to other PIM domains. Due to breaking the Internet multicast
   infrastructure down to multiple PIM domains, MSDP also enables the
   possibility to set policy on the visibility of the groups and

   Transit IP providers typically deploy MSDP to be part of the global
   multicast infrastructure by connecting to their upstream and peer

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                          Section 1.  [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   multicast networks using MSDP.

   Edge multicast networks typically have two choices: to use their
   Internet providers RP, or to have their own RP and connect it to
   their ISP using MSDP.  By deploying their own RP and MSDP, one can
   use internal multicast groups which are not visible to the provider's
   RP. This helps with internal multicast being able to continue to work
   in the event there is a problem with connectivity to the provider or
   the provider's RP/MSDP is experiencing difficulties.  In the simplest
   cases where no internal multicast groups are necessary, there is
   often no need to deploy MSDP.

1.1.  BCP, Experimental Protocols and Normative References

   This document describes the best current practice for a widely
   deployed Experimental protocol, MSDP. There is no plan to advance the
   MSDP's status (for example, to Proposed Standard). The reasons for
   this include:

    o MSDP was originally envisioned as a temporary protocol to be
      supplanted by whatever the IDMR working group produced as an
      inter-domain protocol. However, the IDMR WG (or subsequently,
      the BGMP WG) never produced a protocol that could be deployed
      to replace MSDP.

    o One of the primary reasons given for MSDP to be classified as
      Experimental was that the MSDP Working Group came up with
      modifications to the protocol that the WG thought made it
      better but that implementors didn't see any reasons to
      deploy. Without these modifications (e.g., UDP or GRE
      encapsulation), MSDP can have negative consequences to initial
      packets in datagram streams.

    o Scalability: Although we don't know what the hard limits might
      be, readvertising everything you know every 60 seconds clearly
      limits the amount of state you can advertise.

    o MSDP reached near ubiquitous deployment as the de-facto
      standard inter-domain multicast protocol in the IPv4 Internet.

    o No consensus could be reached regarding the reworking of MSDP
      to address the many concerns of various constituencies within
      the IETF. As a result, a decision was taken to document what is
      (ubiquitously) deployed and move that document to Experimental.
      While advancement of MSDP to Proposed Standard was considered,

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 1.1.  [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

      for the reasons mentioned above, it was immediately discarded.

    o The advent of protocols such as source specific multicast and
      bi-directional PIM, as well as embedded RP techniques for
      IPv6, have further reduced consensus that a replacement
      protocol for MSDP for the IPv4 Internet is required.

   The RFC Editor's policy regarding references is that they be split
   into two categories known as "normative" and "informative". Normative
   references specify those documents which must be read to understand
   or implement the technology in an RFC (or whose technology must be
   present for the technology in the new RFC to work) [RFCED]. In order
   to understand this document, one must also understand both the PIM
   and MSDP documents. As a result, references to these documents are

   The IETF has adopted the policy that BCPs must not have normative
   references to Experimental protocols.  However, this document is a
   special case in that the underlying Experimental document (MSDP) is
   not planned to be advanced to Proposed Standard.

   The MBONED Working Group requests approval under the Variance
   Procedure as documented in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].

   Note to RFC-Editor: If IETF/IESG approves this, please change the
   above sentence into: The MBONED Working Group has requested approval
   under the Variance Procedure as documented in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
   The IESG followed the Variance Procedure, and after an additional 4
   week IETF Last Call evaluated the comments and status and has
   approved this document.

   The key words "MUST"", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].

2.  Inter-domain MSDP Peering Scenarios

   The following sections describe the most common inter-domain MSDP
   peering possibilities and their deployment options.

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                          Section 2.  [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

2.1.  Peering between PIM Border Routers

   In this case, the MSDP peers within the domain have their own RP
   located within a bounded PIM domain. In addition, the domain will
   typically have its own Autonomous System (AS) number and one or more
   MBGP speakers. The domain may also have multiple MSDP speakers. Each
   border router has an MSDP and MBGP peering with its peer routers.
   These external MSDP peering deployments typically configure the MBGP
   peering and MSDP peering using the same directly connected next hop
   peer IP address or other IP address from the same router. Typical
   deployments of this type are providers who have a direct peering with
   other providers, providers peering at an exchange, or providers who
   use their edge router to MSDP/MBGP peer with customers.

   For a direct peering inter-domain environment to be successful, the
   first AS in the MBGP best path to the originating RP should be the
   same as the AS of the MSDP peer. As an example, consider the
   following topology:

      |    /
      |   /
      |  /

   In this case, AS4 receives a Source Active (SA) message, originated
   by AS1, from AS2. AS2 also has an MBGP peering with AS4. The MBGP
   first hop AS from AS4, in the best path to the originating RP, is
   AS2. The AS of the sending MSDP peer is also AS2. In this case, the
   peer-Reverse Path Forwarding check (peer-RPF check) passes and the SA
   message is forwarded.

   A peer-RPF failure would occur in this topology when the MBGP first
   hop AS, in the best path to the originating RP, is AS2 while the
   origin AS of the sending MSDP peer is AS3. This reliance upon BGP AS
   PATH information prevents endless looping of SA packets.

   Router code, which has adopted the latest rules in the MSDP draft,
   will relax the rules Between AS's a bit. In the following topology we
   have an MSDP peering between AS1<->AS3 and AS3<->AS4:


McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 2.1.  [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   If the first AS in best path to the RP does not equal the MSDP peer,
   MSDP peer-RPF fails. So AS1 cannot MSDP peer with AS3 since AS2 is
   the first AS in the MBGP best path to AS4 RP. With the latest MSDP
   draft compliant code, AS 1 will choose the peer in the closest AS
   along best AS path to the RP. AS1 will then accept SA's coming from
   AS3. If there are multiple MSDP peers to routers within the same AS,
   the peer with the highest IP address is chosen as the RPF peer.

2.2.  Peering between Non-Border Routers

   When MSDP peering between border routers, intra-domain MSDP
   scalability is restricted because it is necessary to also maintain
   MBGP and MSDP peerings internally towards their border routers.
   Within the intra-domain, the border router becomes the announcer of
   the next hop towards the originating RP. This requires that all
   intra-domain MSDP peerings must mirror the MBGP path back towards the
   border router. External MSDP (eMSDP) peerings rely upon AS path for
   peer RPF checking, while internal MSDP (iMSDP) peerings rely upon the
   announcer of the next hop.

   While the eMBGP peer is typically directly connected between border
   routers, it is common for the eMSDP peer to be located deeper into
   the transit providers AS. Providers, which desire more flexibility in
   MSDP peering placement, commonly choose a few dedicated routers
   within their core network for the inter-domain MSDP peerings to their
   customers. These core MSDP routers will also typically be in the
   providers intra-domain MSDP mesh group and configured for Anycast RP.
   All multicast routers in the providers AS should statically point to
   the Anycast RP address. Static RP assignment is the most commonly
   used method for group to RP mapping due to its deterministic nature.
   Auto-RP [AUTORP] and/or the Bootstrap Router (BSR) [BSR] dynamic RP
   mapping mechanisms could be also used to disseminate RP information
   within the provider's network

   For an SA message to be accepted in this (multi-hop peering)
   environment, we rely upon the next (or closest, with latest MSDP
   spec) AS in the best path towards originating RP for the RPF check.
   The MSDP peer address should be in the same AS as the AS of the
   border router's MBGP peer. The MSDP peer address should be advertised
   via MBGP.

   For example, using the diagram below, if customer R1 router is MBGP
   peering with R2 router and if R1 is MSDP peering with R3 router, then
   R2 and R3 must be in the same AS (or appear, to AS1, to be from the
   same AS in the event private AS numbers are deployed). The MSDP peer

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 2.2.  [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   with the highest IP address will be chosen as the MSDP RPF peer. R1
   must also have the MSDP peer address of R3 in its MBGP table.

      +--+    +--+    +--+
      +--+    +--+    +--+
      AS1     AS2     AS2

   From R3's perspective, AS1 (R1) is the MBGP next AS in the best path
   towards the originating RP. As long as AS1 is the next AS (or
   closest) in the best path towards the originating RP, RPF will
   succeed on SAs arriving from R1.

   In contrast, with the single hop scenario, with R2 (instead of R3)
   border MSDP peering with R1 border, R2's MBGP address becomes the
   announcer of the next hop for R3, towards the originating RP, and R3
   must peer with that R2 address. And all AS2 intra-domain MSDP peers
   need to follow iMBGP (or other IGP) peerings towards R2 since iMSDP
   has a dependence upon peering with the address of the MBGP (or other
   IGP) announcer of the next hop.

2.3.  MSDP Peering without BGP

   In this case, an enterprise maintains its own RP and has an MSDP
   peering with their service provider, but does not BGP peer with them.
   MSDP relies upon BGP path information to learn the MSDP topology for
   the SA peer-RPF check. MSDP can be deployed without BGP, however, and
   as a result there are some special cases where the requirement to
   perform an peer-RPF check on the BGP path information is suspended.
   These cases are:

    o There is only a single MSDP peer connection

    o A default peer (default MSDP route) is configured

    o The originating RP is directly connected

    o A mesh group is used

    o An implementation is used which allows for an MSDP peer-RPF
      check using an IGP

   These cases are when there is only a single MSDP peer connection, a
   default peer (default MSDP route) is configured, the originating RP

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 2.3.  [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   is directly connected, a mesh group is used, or an implementation is
   used which allows for an MSDP peer-RPF check using an IGP.

   An enterprise will typically configure a unicast default route from
   their border router to the provider's border router and then MSDP
   peer with the provider's MSDP router. If internal MSDP peerings are
   also used within the enterprise, then an MSDP default peer will need
   to be configured on the border router pointing to the provider. In
   this way, all external multicast sources will be learned and internal
   sources can be advertised. If only a single MSDP peering was used (no
   internal MSDP peerings) towards the provider, then this stub site
   will MSDP default peer towards the provider and skip the peer-RPF

2.4.  MSDP Peering at a Multicast Exchange

   Multicast exchanges allow multicast providers to peer at a common IP
   subnet (or by using point to point virtual LANs) and share MSDP SA
   updates. Each provider will MSDP and MBGP peer with each others
   directly connected exchange IP address. Each exchange router will
   send/receive SAs to/from their MSDP peers. They will then be able to
   forward SAs throughout their domain to their customers and any direct
   provider peerings.

3.  Intra-domain MSDP Peering Scenarios

   The following sections describe the different intra-domain MSDP
   peering possibilities and their deployment options.

3.1.  Peering between MSDP and MBGP Configured Routers

   The next hop IP address of the iBGP peer is typically used for the
   MSDP peer-RPF check (IGP can also be used). This is different from
   the inter-domain BGP/MSDP case, where AS path information is used for
   the peer-RPF check. For this reason, it is necessary for the IP
   address of the MSDP peer connection be the same as the internal MBGP
   peer connection whether or not the MSDP/MBGP peers are directly
   connected. A successful deployment would be similar to the following:

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                       Section 3.1.  [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

                              | Rb |
                            / +----+
       AS1          AS2    /     |
      +---+         +--+  /      |
      |RP1|---------|Ra|         |
      +---+         +--+         |        |
                          \      |
                           \     |
                            \ +-----+
                              | RP2 |

   Where RP2 MSDP and MBGP peers with Ra (using and with Rb
   (using When the MSDP SA update arrives on RP2 from Ra, the
   MSDP RPF check for passes because RP2 receives the SA update
   from MSDP peer which is also the correct MBGP next hop for

   When RP2 receives the same SA update from MSDP peer, the MBGP
   lookup for shows a next hop of so RPF correctly
   fails, preventing a loop.

   This deployment could also fail on an update from Ra to RP2 if RP2
   was MBGP peering to an address other than on Ra. Intra-domain
   deployments must have MSDP and MBGP (or other IGP) peering addresses
   which match, unless a method to skip the peer-RPF check is deployed.

3.2.  MSDP Peer is not BGP Peer (or no BGP Peer)

   This is a common MSDP intra-domain deployment in environments where
   few routers are running MBGP or where the domain is not running MBGP.
   The problem here is that the MSDP peer address needs to be the same
   as the MBGP peer address. To get around this requirement, the intra-
   domain MSDP RPF rules have been relaxed in the following topologies:

    o By configuring the MSDP peer as a mesh group peer

    o By having the MSDP peer be the only MSDP peer

    o By configuring a default MSDP peer

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                       Section 3.2.  [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

    o By peering with the originating RP.

    o By relying upon an IGP for MSDP peer-RPF

   The common choice around the intra-domain BGP peering requirement,
   when more than one MSDP peer is configured, is to deploy MSDP mesh
   groups. When a MSDP mesh group is deployed, there is no RPF check on
   arriving SA messages when received from a mesh group peer.
   Subsequently, SA messages are always accepted from mesh group peers.
   MSDP mesh groups were developed to reduce the amount of SA traffic in
   the network since SAs, which arrive from a mesh group peer, are not
   flooded to peers within that same mesh group. Mesh groups must be
   fully meshed.

   If recent (but not currently widely deployed) router code is running
   which is fully complaint with the latest MSDP draft, another option,
   to work around not having BGP to MSDP RPF peer, is to RPF using an
   IGP like OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, etc. This new capability will allow for
   enterprise customers, who are not running BGP and who don't want to
   run mesh groups, to use their existing IGP to satisfy the MSDP peer-
   RPF rules.

3.3.  Hierarchical Mesh Groups

   Hierarchal Mesh Groups are occasionally deployed in intra-domain
   environments where there are a large number of MSDP peers. Allowing
   multiple mesh groups to forward to one another can reduce the number
   of MSDP peerings per router (due to the full mesh requirement) and
   hence reduce router load. A good hierarchical mesh group
   implementation (one which prevents looping) contains a core mesh
   group in the backbone and these core routers serve as mesh group
   aggregation routers:

                   /  \
                  /    \
                 /      \
                /        \
               /          \
              /            \
             /              \

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                       Section 3.3.  [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   In this example, R1, R2, R3 are in MSDP mesh group A (the core mesh
   group) and each serves as MSDP aggregation routers for their leaf (or
   second tier) mesh groups 1, 2, and 3. Since SA messages received from
   a mesh group peer are not forwarded to peers within that same mesh
   group, SA messages will not loop. Do not create topologies which
   connect mesh-groups in a loop. In the above example for instance,
   second tier mesh-groups 1, 2, and 3 must not directly exchange SA
   messages with each other or an endless SA loop will occur.

   Redundancy, between mesh groups, will also cause a loop and is
   subsequently not available with Hierarchical mesh groups. For
   instance, assume R3 had two routers connecting its leaf mesh group 3
   with the core mesh group A. A loop would be created between mesh
   group 3 and mesh group A because each mesh group must be fully meshed
   between peers.

3.4.  MSDP and Route Reflectors

   BGP requires all iBGP speakers, that are not route-reflector clients
   or confederation members, be fully meshed to prevent loops. In the
   route reflector environment, MSDP requires that the route reflector
   clients peer with the route reflector since the router reflector (RR)
   is the BGP announcer of the next hop towards the originating RP. The
   RR is not the BGP next hop, but is the announcer of the BGP next hop.
   The announcer of the next hop is the address typically used for MSDP
   peer-RPF checks. For example, consider the following case:

                     / | \
                    A  B  C

   Ra is forwarding MSDP SAs to the route reflector RR. Routers A, B,
   and C also MSDP peer with RR. When RR forwards the SA to A, B, and C,
   these RR clients will accept the SA because RR is the announcer of
   the next hop to the originating RP address.

   An SA will peer-RPF fail, if Ra MSDP peers directly with Routers A,
   B, or C, because the announcer of the next hop is RR, but the SA
   update came from Ra. Proper deployment is to have RR clients MSDP
   peer with the RR. MSDP mesh groups may be used to work around this
   requirement. External MSDP peerings will also prevent this
   requirement since the next AS is compared between MBGP and MSDP

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                       Section 3.4.  [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   peerings, rather than the IP address of the announcer of the next

   Some recent MSDP implementations conform to the latest MSDP draft
   which relaxes the requirement of peering with the Advertiser of the
   Next Hop (the Route Reflector). This new rule allows for peering with
   the Next-Hop, in addition to the Advertiser of the next hop. In the
   example above, for instance, if Ra is the Next-Hop (perhaps due to
   using BGP's Next hop self attribute) and if routers A,B,C are peering
   with Ra, the SA's received from Ra will now succeed.

3.5.  MSDP and Anycast RPs

   A network, with multiple RPs, can achieve RP load sharing and
   redundancy by using the Anycast RP mechanism in conjunction with MSDP
   mesh groups [RFC3446]. This mechanism is a common deployment
   technique used within a domain by service providers and enterprises
   which deploy several RPs within their domain. These RPs will each
   have the same IP address configured on a Loopback interface (making
   this the Anycast address). These RPs will MSDP peer with each other
   using a separate loopback interface and are part of the same fully
   meshed MSDP mesh group. This loopback interface, used for MSDP
   peering, will typically also be used for the MBGP peering. All
   routers within the provider's domain will learn of the Anycast RP
   address either through Auto-RP, BSR, or a static RP assignment. Each
   designated router in the domain will send source registers and group
   joins to the Anycast RP address. Unicast routing will direct those
   registers and joins to the nearest Anycast RP. If a particular
   Anycast RP router fails, unicast routing will direct subsequent
   registers and joins to the nearest Anycast RP. That RP will then
   forward an MSDP update to all peers within the Anycast MSDP mesh
   group. Each RP will then forward (or receive) the SAs to (from)
   external customers and providers.

4.  Security Considerations

   An MSDP service should be secured by explicitly controlling the state
   which is created by, and passed within, the MSDP service. As with
   unicast routing state, MSDP state should be controlled locally, at
   the edge origination points.  Selective filtering at the multicast
   service edge helps ensure that only intended sources result in SA

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                         Section 4.  [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   message creation, and this control helps to reduce the likelihood of
   state-aggregation related problems in the core. There are a variety
   of points where local policy should be applied to the MSDP service.

4.1.  Filtering SA messages

   The process of originating SA messages should be filtered to ensure
   only intended local sources are resulting in SA message origination.
   In addition, MSDP speakers should filter on which SA messages get
   received and forwarded.

   Typically there is a fair amount of (S,G) state in a PIM-SM domain
   that is local to the domain. However, without proper filtering, sa-
   messages containing these local (S,G) announcements may be advertised
   to the global MSDP infrastructure. Examples of this includes domain
   local applications that use global IP multicast addresses and sources
   that use RFC 1918 addresses [RFC1918]. To improve on the scalability
   of MSDP and to avoid global visibility of domain local (S,G)
   information, an external SA filter list is recommended to help
   prevent unnecessary creation, forwarding, and caching of well-known
   domain local sources.

4.2.  SA message state limits

   Proper filtering on SA message origination, receipt, and forwarding
   will significantly reduce the likelihood of unintended and unexpected
   spikes in MSDP state  However, a sa-cache state limit SHOULD be
   configured as a final safeguard to state spikes. When an MSDP peering
   has reached a stable state (i.e., when the peering has been
   established and the initial SA state has been transferred), it may
   also be desirable to configure a rate limiter for the creation of new
   SA state entries.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                         Section 5.  [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Pekka Savola, John Zwiebel, Swapna
   Yelamanchi, Greg Shepherd, and Jay Ford for their feedback on earlier
   versions of this document.

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                         Section 6.  [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [PIM-SM]        Fenner, B., et. al, "Protocol Independent Multicast -
                   Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
                   (Revised)", draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-09.txt. Work
                   in progress.

   [RFC1771]       Rekhter, Y., and T. Li, "A Border Gateway
                   Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [RFC1918]       Y. Rekhter, R. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. de
                   Groot, E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
                   Internets", RFC 1918, Feburary, 1996.

   [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
                   Indicate Requirement Levels" RFC 2119/BCP 14,
                   March 1997.

   [RFC2365]       Meyer, D. "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast",
                   RFC 2365, July, 1998.

   [RFC2434]       Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
                   Writing an IANA Considerations Section in
                   RFCs", RFC 2434/BCP 0026, October, 1998.

   [RFC2858]       Bates T., Y. Rekhter, R. Chandra, D. Katz,
                   "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858,
                   June 2000.

   [RFC3330]       IANA, "Special-User IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330,
                   September 2002.

   [RFC3446]       Kim, D., et. al., "Anycast Rendezvous Point (RP)
                   Mechanism using Protocol Independent Multicast
                   (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
                   (MSDP)", RFC 3446, January, 2003.

   [RFC3618]       Meyer, D. and W. Fenner (Editors), "The Multicast
                   Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618,
                   October, 2003.

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                       Section 7.1.  [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

7.2.  Informative References

   [AUTORP]        Fenner, W., et. al., " Protocol Independent
                   Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
                   Specification (Revised)", draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-08.txt,
                   April, 2004. Work in progress.

   [BSR]           Fenner, W.,  et. al., "Bootstrap Router (BSR)
                   Mechanism for PIM Sparse Mode", draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-03.txt,
                   February, 2003. Work in progress.



8.  Author's Addresses

   Mike McBride
   Cisco Systems

   John Meylor
   Cisco Systems

   David Meyer

9.  Full 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.

   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

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                         Section 9.  [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   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

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

10.  Intellectual Property

   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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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
   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-

11.  Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 11.  [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT           Expires: September 2004              March 2004

   Internet Society.

McBride, Meylor, and Meyer                        Section 11.  [Page 20]