Network Working Group Dino Farinacci
INTERNET DRAFT Procket Networks
Yakov Rekhter
David Meyer
Cisco Systems
Peter Lothberg
Sprint
Hank Kilmer
Jeremy Hall
UUnet
Category Standards Track
January, 2000
Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)
<draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt>
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
2. Abstract
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism
to connect multiple PIM-SM domains together. Each PIM-SM domain uses
its own independent RP(s) and does not have to depend on RPs in other
domains.
3. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (20000). All Rights Reserved.
4. Introduction
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism
to connect multiple PIM-SM domains together. Each PIM-SM domain uses
its own independent RP(s) and does not have to depend on RPs in other
domains. Advantages of this approach include:
o No Third-party resource dependencies on RP
PIM-SM domains can rely on their own RPs only.
o Receiver only Domains
Domains with only receivers get data without globally
advertising group membership.
o Global Source State
Global source state is not required, since a router need not
cache Source Active (SA) messages (see below). MSDP is a
periodic protocol.
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED,
SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined
in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
5. Overview
An RP (or other MSDP SA originator) in a PIM-SM [RFC2362] domain will
have a MSDP peering relationship with a MSDP speaker in another
domain. The peering relationship will be made up of a TCP connection
in which control information exchanged. Each domain will have one or
more connections to this virtual topology.
The purpose of this topology is to have domains discover multicast
sources from other domains. If the multicast sources are of interest
to a domain which has receivers, the normal source-tree building
mechanism in PIM-SM will be used to deliver multicast data over an
inter-domain distribution tree.
We envision this virtual topology will essentially be congruent to
the existing BGP topology used in the unicast-based Internet today.
That is, the TCP connections between MSDP speakers can be realized by
the underlying BGP routing system.
6. Procedure
A source in a PIM-SM domain originates traffic to a multicast group.
The PIM DR which is directly connected to the source sends the data
encapsulated in a PIM Register message to the RP in the domain.
The RP will construct a "Source-Active" (SA) message and send it to
its MSDP peers. The SA message contains the following fields:
o Source address of the data source.
o Group address the data source sends to.
o IP address of the RP.
Each MSDP peer receives and forwards the message away from the RP
address in a "peer-RPF flooding" fashion. The notion of peer-RPF
flooding is with respect to forwarding SA messages. The BGP routing
table is examined to determine which peer is the NEXT_HOP towards the
originating RP of the SA message. Such a peer is called an "RPF
peer". See section 10 below for the details of peer-RPF forwarding.
If the MSDP peer receives the SA from a non-RPF peer towards the
originating RP, it will drop the message. Otherwise, it forwards the
message to all its MSDP peers.
The flooding can be further constrained to children of the peer by
interrogating BGP reachability information. That is, if a BGP peer
advertises a route (back to you) and you are the next to last AS in
the AS_PATH, the peer is using you as the NEXT_HOP. This is known in
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
other circles as Split-Horizon with Poison Reverse. An implementation
SHOULD NOT forward SA messages (which were originated from the RP
address covered by a route) to peers which have not Poison Reversed
that route.
When an MSDP peer which is also an RP for its own domain receives a
new SA message, it determines if it has any group members interested
in the group which the SA message describes. That is, the RP checks
for a (*,G) entry with a non-empty outgoing interface list; this
implies that the domain is interested in the group. In this case, the
RP triggers a (S,G) join event towards the data source as if a
Join/Prune message was received addressed to the RP itself (See
[RFC2362] Section 3.2.2). This sets up a branch of the source-tree to
this domain. Subsequent data packets arrive at the RP which are
forwarded down the shared-tree inside the domain. If leaf routers
choose to join the source-tree they have the option to do so
according to existing PIM-SM conventions. Finally, if an RP in a
domain receives a PIM Join message for a new group G, and it is
caching SAs, then the RP should trigger a (S,G) join event for each
SA for that group in its cache.
This procedure has been affectionately named flood-and-join because
if any RP is not interested in the group, they can ignore the SA
message. Otherwise, they join a distribution tree.
7. Controlling State
While RPs which receive SA messages are not required to keep MSDP
(S,G) state, an RP SHOULD cache SA messages by default. The advantage
of caching is that newly formed MSDP peers can get MSDP (S,G) state
sooner and therefore reduce join latency for new joiners. In
addition, caching greatly aids in diagnosis and debugging of various
problems.
7.1. Timers
The main timers for MSDP are: SA-Advertisement-Timer, SA-Hold-Down-
Timer, SA Cache entry timers, and KeepAlive timer.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
7.1.1. SA-Advertisement-Timer
RPs which originate SA messages do it periodically as long as there
is data being sent by the source. There is one SA-Advertisement-Timer
covering the sources that an RP may advertise. [SA-Advertisement-
Timer] MUST be 60 seconds. An RP will not send more than one SA
message for a given (S,G) within an SA Advertisement interval.
Originating periodic SA messages is important so that new receivers
who join after a source has been active can get data quickly via the
receiver's own RP when it is not caching SA state.
7.1.1.1. SA-Advertisement-Timer Processing
When an RP is processing a PIM register message, it encapsulates the
data (if any) in an SA message and sends the SA message it to each of
its peers. The RP starts the SA Advertisement-Timer for the (S,G) at
this time. When the timer expires, and there is (S,G) state for a
source within the RP's domain, an (S,G)-SA message is sent to each
peer and the timer is reset to [SA-Advertisement-Timer] seconds. If
no (S,G) state exists, the timer is deleted.
The following table summarizes (S,G)-SA-Advertisement-Timer
processing:
Set to | When | Applies to
[SA-Advertisement-Timer] | created off Register packet | (S,G)
Reset to | When | Applies to
[SA-Advertisement-Timer] | Timer expires and (S,G) | (S,G)
| state exists and was |
| created by a register |
Deleted | When | Applies to
[SA-Advertisement-Timer] | Timer expires and (S,G) | (S,G)
| state has expired |
Note that a caching implementation may also wish to check the SA-
Cache on this timer event.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
7.1.2. SA Cache Timeout (SA-State-Timer)
Each entry in an SA Cache has an associated SA-State-Timer. A
(S,G)-SA-State-Timer is is started when an (S,G)-SA message is
initially received by a caching MSDP speaker. The timer is reset to
[SA-State-Timer] if another (S,G)-SA message is received before the
(S,G)-SA-State-Timer expires. [SA-State-Timer] MUST NOT be less than
90 seconds. The following table summarizes SA-State-Timer
processing:
Set to | When | Applies to
[SA-State-Timer] | creating (S,G)-SA cache | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
| entry (on receipt of a |
| (S,G)-SA message) |
Reset to | When | Applies to
[SA-State-Timer] | On receipt of (S,G)-SA | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
| message |
Deleted | When | Applies to
(S,G) SA Cache | Timer expires | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
entry | |
7.1.3. SA-Hold-Down-Timer
A caching MSDP speaker SHOULD NOT forward an SA message it has
received in the last SA-Hold-Down interval. [SA-Hold-Down-Timer]
SHOULD be set to 30 seconds. The following table summarizes SA-Hold-
Down-Timer processing:
Set to | When | Applies to
[SA-Hold-Down-Timer] | Upon receipt of | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
| (S,G)-SA message |
Reset to | When | Applies to
[SA-Hold-Down-Timer] | When forwarding (S,G)-SA | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
| message |
Deleted | When | Applies to
(S,G)-SA-Hold-Down-Timer] | (S,G)-SA entry is | (S,G)-SA Cache Entry
deleted
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
7.1.4. KeepAlive Timer
Set to | When | Applies to
[KeepAliver-Timer] | passive-connect peer comes | each peer
| up |
Reset to | When | Applies to
[KeepAliver-Timer] | Receipt of data from peer | each peer
Deleted | When | Applies to
KeepAliver-Timer | Timer expires | each peer
| or passive-connect peer |
| closes connection |
7.2. Intermediate MSDP Speakers
Intermediate RPs do not originate periodic SA messages on behalf of
sources in other domains. In general, an RP MUST only originate an SA
for its own sources.
7.3. SA Filtering and Policy
As the number of (S,G) pairs increases in the Internet, an RP may
want to filter which sources it describes in SA messages. Also,
filtering may be used as a matter of policy which at the same time
can reduce state. Only the RP co-located in the same domain as the
source can restrict SA messages. Note, however, that MSDP peers in
transit domains should not filter SA messages or the flood-and-join
model can not guarantee that sources will be known throughout the
Internet (i.e., SA filtering by transit domains can cause undesired
lack of connectivity). In general, policy should be expressed using
MBGP [RFC2283]. This will cause MSDP messages will flow in the
desired direction and peer-RPF fail otherwise. An exception occurs at
an administrative scope [RFC2365] boundary. In particular, a SA
message for a (S,G) MUST NOT be sent to peers which are on the other
side of an administrative scope boundary for G.
7.4. SA Requests
If an MSDP peer decides to cache SA state, it MAY accept SA-Requests
from other MSDP peers. When an MSDP peer receives an SA-Request for a
group range, it will respond to the peer with a set of SA entries, in
an SA-Response message, for all active sources sending to the group
range requested in the SA-Request message. The peer that sends the
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
request will not flood the responding SA-Response message to other
peers. See section 12 for discussion of error handling relating to SA
requests and responses.
8. Encapsulated Data Packets
For bursty sources, the RP may encapsulate multicast data from the
source. An interested RP may decapsulate the packet, which SHOULD be
forwarded as if a PIM register encapsulated packet was received. That
is, if packets are already arriving over the interface toward the
source, then the packet is dropped. Otherwise, if the outgoing
interface list is non-null, the packet is forwarded appropriately.
Note that when doing data encapsulation, an implementation MUST bound
the time during which the source which are encapsulated.
This allows for small bursts to be received before the multicast tree
is built back toward the source's domain. For example, an
implementation SHOULD encapsulate at least the first packet to
provide service to bursty sources.
9. Other Scenarios
MSDP is not limited to deployment across different routing domains.
It can be used within a routing domain when it is desired to deploy
multiple RPs for different group ranges. As long as all RPs have a
interconnected MSDP topology, each can learn about active sources as
well as RPs in other domains. Another example is the Anycast RP
mechanism [ANYCASTRP].
10. MSDP Peer-RPF Forwarding
The MSDP Peer-RPF Forwarding rules are used for forwarding SA
messages throughout an MSDP enabled internet. Unlike the RPF check
used when forwarding data packets, the Peer-RPF check is against the
RP address carried in the SA message.
10.1. Peer-RPF Forwarding Rules
An SA message originated by an MSDP originator R and received by a
MSDP router from MSDP peer N is accepted if N is the appropriate RPF
neighbor for originator R, and discarded otherwise.
The RPF neighbor is chosen using the first of the following rules
that matches:
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
(i). R is the RPF neighbor if we have an MSDP peering with R.
(ii). The external MBGP neighbor towards which we are
poison-reversing the MBGP route towards R is the RPF neighbor
if we have an MSDP peering with it.
(iii). If we have any MSDP peerings with neighbors in the first
AS along the AS_PATH (the AS from which we learned this
route), but no external MBGP peerings with them,
pick one via a deterministic rule.
(vi). The internal MBGP advertiser of the router towards R is
the RPF neighbor if we have an MSDP peering with it.
(v). If none of the above match, and we have an MSDP
default-peer configured, the MSDP default-peer is
the RPF neighbor.
10.2. MSDP default-peer semantics
A MSDP default-peer is much like a default route. It is intended to
be used in those cases where a stub network isn't running BGP or
MBGP. A MSDP speaker configured with a default-peer accepts all SA
messages from the default-peer. Note that a router running BGP or
MBGP SHOULD NOT allow configuration of default peers, since this
allows the possibility for SA looping to occur.
11. MSDP Connection Establishment
MSDP messages will be encapsulated in a TCP connection using well-
known port 639. One side of the MSDP peering relationship will listen
on the well-known port and the other side will do an active connect
on the well-known port. The side with the higher peer IP address will
do the listen. This connection establishment algorithm avoids call
collision. Therefore, there is no need for a call collision
procedure. It should be noted, however, that the disadvantage of this
approach is that it may result in longer startup times at the passive
end.
An MSDP speaker starts in the INACTIVE state. MSDP speakers establish
peering sessions according to the following state machine:
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
De-configured or
disabled
+-------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
Enable |
+-----|--------->+----------+ |
| | +->| INACTIVE |----------------+ |
| | | +----------+ | |
Deconf'ed | | | /|\ /|\ | Higher Address
or | | | | | | |
disabled | | | | | \|/ |
| | | | | | +-------------+
| | | | | +---------------| CONNECTING |
| | | | | Timeout or +-------------+
| | | | | Local Address Change |
\|/ \|/ | | | |
+----------+ | | | |
| DISABLED | | | +---------------------+ | TCP Established
+----------+ | | | |
/|\ /|\ | | Connection Timeout, | |
| | | | Local Address change, | |
| | | | Authorization Failure | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | \|/
| | | | +-------------+
| | Local | | | ESTABLISHED |
| | Address | | Lower Address +-------------+
| | Change | \|/ /|\ |
| | | +--------+ | |
| | +--| LISTEN |--------------------+ |
| | +--------+ TCP Accept |
| | | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ |
| De-configured or |
| disabled |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------+
De-configured or
disabled
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12. Packet Formats
MSDP messages will be encoded in TLV format. If an implementation
receives a TLV that has length that is longer than expected, the TLV
SHOULD be accepted. Any additional data SHOULD be ignored.
12.1. MSDP TLV format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (8 bits)
Describes the format of the Value field.
Length (16 bits)
Length of Type, Length, and Value fields in octets. The
minimum length required is 3 octets.
Value (variable length)
Format is based on the Type value. See below. The length of
the value field is Length field minus 3.
12.2. Defined TLVs
The following TLV Types are defined:
Code Type
===========================================================
1 IPv4 Source-Active
2 IPv4 Source-Active Request
3 IPv4 Source-Active Response
4 KeepAlive
5 Notification
Each TLV is described below.
12.2.1. IPv4 Source-Active TLV
The maximum size SA message that can be sent is 1400 octets. If an
MSDP peer needs to originate a message with information greater than
1400 octets, it sends successive 1400-octet messages. The 1400 octet
size does not include the TCP, IP, layer-2 headers.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | x + y | Entry Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Sprefix Len | \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| Group Address | ) z
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| Source Address | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
IPv4 Source-Active TLV is type 1.
Length x
Is the length of the control information in the message. x is
8 octets (for the first two 32-bit quantities) plus 12 times
Entry Count octets.
Length y
If 0, then there is no data encapsulated. Otherwise an IPv4
packet follows and y is the length of the total length field
of the IPv4 header encapsulated. If there are multiple SA TLVs
in a message, and data is also included, y must be 0 in all SA
TLVs except the last one. And the last SA TLV must reflect the
source and destination addresses in the IP header of the
encapsulated data.
Entry Count
Is the count of z entries (note above) which follow the RP
address field. This is so multiple (S,G)s from the same domain
can be encoded efficiently for the same RP address.
RP Address
The address of the RP in the domain the source has become
active in.
Reserved
The Reserved field MUST be transmitted as zeros and ignored
by a receiver.
Sprefix Len
The route prefix length associated with source address.
Group Address
The group address the active source has sent data to.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
Source Address
The IP address of the active source.
Multiple SA TLVs MAY appear in the same message and can be batched
for efficiency at the expense of data latency. This would typically
occur on intermediate forwarding of SA messages.
12.2.2. IPv4 Source-Active Request TLV
The Source-Active Request is used to request SA-state from a caching
MSDP peer. If an RP in a domain receives a PIM Join message for a
group, creates (*,G) state and wants to know all active sources for
group G, and it has been configured to peer with an SA-state caching
peer, it may send an SA-Request message for the group.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 | 8 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
IPv4 Source-Active Request TLV is type 2.
Reserved
The Reserved field MUST be transmitted as zeros and ignored
by a receiver.
Group Address
The group address the MSDP peer is requesting.
12.2.3. IPv4 Source-Active Response TLV
The Source-Active Response is sent in response to a Source-Active
Request message. The Source-Active Response message has the same
format as a Source-Active message but does not allow encapsulation of
multicast data.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | x | .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
IPv4 Source-Active Response TLV is type 3.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
Length x
Is the length of the control information in the message. x is 8
octets (for the first two 32-bit quantities) plus 12 times Entry
Count octets.
12.2.4. KeepAlive TLV
A KeepAlive TLV is sent to an MSDP peer if and only if there were no
MSDP messages sent to the peer after a period of time. This message
is necessary for the active connect side of the MSDP connection. The
passive connect side of the connection knows that the connection will
be reestablished when a TCP SYN packet is sent from the active
connect side. However, the active connect side will not know when the
passive connect side goes down. Therefore, the KeepAlive timeout will
be used to reset the TCP connection.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | 4 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length of the message is 4 octets which encompasses the 1-octet
Type field and the 2-octet Length field, plus the Reserved field. The
Reserved field MUST be transmitted as zeros and ignored by a
receiver.
12.2.5. Notification TLV
A Notification message is sent when an error condition is detected,
and has the following form:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 | x + 5 |O| Error Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error subcode | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Data |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
The Notification TLV is type 7.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
Length
Length is a two octet field with value x + 5, where x is
the length of the notification data field.
O-bit
Open-bit. If reset, the connection will be closed [MASC].
Error code
This 7-bit unsigned integer indicates the type of Notification.
The following Error Codes have been defined:
Error Code Symbolic Name Reference
1 Message Header Error Section 12.3
2 Finite State Machine Error Section 12.4
3 Notification Message Error Section 12.5
4 SA-Request Error Section 12.6
5 SA-Response Error Section 12.7
6 SA-Message Error Section 12.8
Error subcode:
This one-octet unsigned integer provides more specific information
about the reported error. Each Error Code may have one or more Error
Subcodes associated with it. If no appropriate Error Subcode is
defined, then a zero (Unspecific) value is used for the Error Subcode
field, and the O-bit must be reset (i.e. the connection will be
closed). The used notation in the error description below is: MC =
Must Close connection = O-bit reset; CC = Can Close connection =
O-bit might be reset [MASC].
Message Header Error subcodes:
0 - Unspecific (MC)
1 - Bad Message Length (MC)
2 - Bad Message Type (MC)
Finite State Machine Error subcodes:
0 - Unspecific (MC)
1 - Unexpected Message Type FSM Error (MC)
Notification subcodes (the O-bit is always reset):
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
0 - Unspecific (CC)
SA-Request Error subcodes:
0 - Not caching (MC)
0 - Invalid Group Address prefix (CC)
SA-Reponse Error subcodes:
0 - Didn't send Request (MC)
SA-Message Error subcodes
0 - Invalid Entry Count (CC)
1 - Invalid RP Address (CC)
2 - Invalid Group Address (CC)
3 - Invalid Source Address (CC)
4 - Invalid Sprefix Length (CC)
5 - Looping SA (Self is RP) (CC)
6 - Unknown Encapsulation (MC)
12.3. Message Header Error Handling
All errors detected while processing the Message Header are indicated
by sending the Notification message with Error Code Message Header
Error. The Error Subcode describes the specific nature of the error.
The Data field contains the erroneous Message (including the message
header).
If the Length field of the message header is less than 4 or greater
than 1400, or the length of a Keepalive message is not equal to 4,
then the Error Subcode is set to Bad Message Length.
If the Type field of the message header is not recognized, then the
Error Subcode is set to Bad Message Type.
12.4. Finite State Machine Error Handling
Any error detected by the MSDP Finite State Machine (e.g., receipt of
an unexpected event) is indicated by sending the Notification message
with Error Code Finite State Machine Error.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12.5. Notification Message Error Handling
If a node sends a Notification message, and there is an error in that
message, and the O-bit of that message is not reset, a Notification
with O-bit reset, Error Code of Notification Error, and subcode
Unspecific must be sent. In addition, the Data field must include
the Notification message that triggered the error. However, if the
erroneous Notification message had the O-bit reset, then any error,
such as an unrecognized Error Code or Error Subcode, should be
noticed, logged locally, and brought to the attention of the
administrator of the remote node.
12.6. SA-Request Error Handling
The SA-Request Error code is used to signal the receipt of a SA
request at a non-caching MSDP speaker, or at a caching MSDP speaker
when an invalid group address requested.
When a non-caching MSDP speaker receives an SA-Request, it returns
the following notification and closes the connection:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 16 |O| 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x0 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If a caching MSDP speaker receives a request for an invalid group, it
returns the following notification and closes the connection:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12.7. SA-Response Error Handling
The SA-Response Error code is used to signal the receipt of a SA
Response at MSDP speaker which did not issue a SA-Request to the
peer. It has the following form:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 8 |O| 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x0 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.8. SA-Message Error Handling
The SA-Message Error code is used to signal the receipt of an SA
message that contains invalid data.
12.8.1. Invalid Entry Count
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x0 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid Entry Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.8.2. Invalid RP Address
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x1 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid RP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12.8.3. Invalid Group Address
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x2 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.8.4. Invalid Source Address
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x3 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.9. Invalid Sprefix Length
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 12 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x4 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Invalid Sprefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.10. Looping SAs (Self is RP in received SA)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 8 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x5 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12.11. Unknown Encapsulation
This notification is sent on receipt of SA data that is encapsulated
in an unknown encapsulation type. See section 12.12 for known
encapsulations.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 7 | 8 |O| 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x6 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.12. SA Data Encapsulation
This section describes UDP and GRE encapsulation of SA data.
Encapsulation type is a configuration option.
12.12.1. UDP Data Encapsulation
MSDP SA-data MAY be encapsulated in UDP. In this case, the UDP
psuedo-header has the following form:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Origin RP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source Port
Port to be used by the remote end, and is known via
configuration.
Destination Port
The Destination Port is set to the remote endpoint's Source port,
and is known via configuration.
Length
Length is the length in octets of this user datagram
including this header and the data. The minimum value
of the length is twelve.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
Checksum
The checksum is computed according to RFC 768 [RFC768].
Originating RP Address
The Originating RP Address is the address of the RP sending
the encapsulated data.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
12.12.2. GRE Encapsulation
MSDP SA-data MAY be encapsulated in GRE using protocol type [MSDP-
GRE-ProtocolType].
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Delivery Headers ..... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| Reserved0 | Ver | [MSDP-GRE-ProtocolType] |\
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ GRE Header
| Checksum (optional) | Reserved1 |/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originating RP IPv4 Address |\
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Payload
| (S,G) Data Packet .... /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
12.12.2.1. GRE Encapsulation and PMTU Discovery [RFC1191]
Existing implementations of GRE, when using IPv4 as the Delivery
Header, do not implement Path MTU discovery and do not set the Don't
Fragment bit in the Delivery Header. This can cause large packets to
become fragmented within the tunnel and reassembled at the tunnel
exit (independent of whether the payload packet is using PMTU). If a
tunnel entry point were to use Path MTU discovery, however, that
tunnel entry point would also need to relay ICMP unreachable error
messages (in particular the "fragmentation needed and DF set" code)
back to the originator of the packet, which is not required by the
GRE specification [GRE]. Failure to properly relay Path MTU
information to an originator can result in the following behavior:
the originator sets the don't fragment bit, the packet gets dropped
within the tunnel, but since the originator doesn't receive proper
feedback, it retransmits with the same PMTU, causing subsequently
transmitted packets to be dropped.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
13. Security Considerations
An MSDP implementation MAY use IPsec [RFC1825] or keyed MD5 [RFC1828]
to secure control messages. When encapsulating SA data in GRE,
security should be relatively similar to security in a normal IPv4
network, as routing using GRE follows the same routing that IPv4 uses
natively. Route filtering will remain unchanged. However packet
filtering at a firewall requires either that a firewall look inside
the GRE packet or that the filtering is done on the GRE tunnel
endpoints. In those environments in which this is considered to be a
security issue it may be desirable to terminate the tunnel at the
firewall.
14. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dave Thaler, Bill Nickless, John
Meylor, Liming Wei, Manoj Leelanivas, Mark Turner, John Zwiebel, and
Cristina Radulescu-Banu for their design feedback and comments. Bill
Fenner also made many contributions, including clarification of the
Peer-RPF rules.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
15. Author's Address:
Dino Farinacci
Procket Networks
3850 No. First St., Ste. C
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: dino@procket.com
Yakov Rehkter
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA, 95134
Email: yakov@cisco.com
Peter Lothberg
Sprint
VARESA0104
12502 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston VA, 20196
Email: roll@sprint.net
Hank Kilmer
Email: hank@rem.com
Jeremy Hall
UUnet Technologies
3060 Williams Drive
Fairfax, VA 22031
Email: jhall@uu.net
David Meyer
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA, 95134
Email: dmm@cisco.com
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
16. REFERENCES
[ANYCASTRP] Meyer, et. al, "Anycast RP mechanism using PIM and
MSDP", draft-ietf-mboned-anycast-rp-04.txt, November,
1999. Work in Progress.
[GRE] Farinacci, D., et al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", draft-meyer-gre-update-02.txt, January,
2000. Work in Progress.
[MASC] Estrin, D., et al., "The Multicast Address-Set Claim
(MASC) Protocol", draft-ietf-malloc-masc-04.txt,
October, 1999. Work in Progress.
[RFC768] Postel, J. "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, August,
1980.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J., and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 1191, November 1990.
[RFC1825] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 1825, August, 1995.
[RFC1828] P. Metzger and W. Simpson, "IP Authentication using
Keyed MD5", RFC 1828, August, 1995.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997.
[RFC2283] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter.,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2283,
February 1998.
[RFC2362] Estrin D., et al., "Protocol Independent Multicast -
Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC
2362, June 1998.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D. "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC
2365, July, 1998.
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-msdp-spec-02.txt January, 2000
Farinacci, Rekhter, Lothberg, Kilmer, Hall, Meyer [Page 26]
