PIM WG A. Boers
Internet-Draft IJ. Wijnands
Intended status: Informational E. Rosen
Expires: April 26, 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 23, 2006
Format for using TLVs in PIM messages
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes a generic TLV attribute encoding format to be
added to PIM join messages.
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use of the Attribute Field in Join Messages . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Attribute join . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Transitive attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Attribute Hello Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.4. Conflicting attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Attribute Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Multiple attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Applicability of the attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8. PIM attribute packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8.1. PIM Join packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8.2. PIM Attribute Hello option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
1. Conventions used in this document
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and
indicate requirement levels for compliant PIM-SM implementations.
2. Introduction
It is sometimes convenient to add additional information to PIM join
messages. The generic PIM encoding format is not always optimal to
do this. This document defines a new field in the PIM Join message
that allows it to use TLVs, hereby called the attribute field. The
content and purpose of this attribute field is outside the scope of
this document, only the generic encoding format is described here.
3. Use of the Attribute Field in Join Messages
3.1. Attribute join
Attribute fields are defined similar to the PIM source encoding type
as defined in [RFC4601]. A source address without any additional
TLV's should be processed identically to a source address in the
default source encoding.
Multiple TLV's from the same or different type are permitted in a
single source address in any order.
3.2. Transitive attributes
It may be desired to have routers that understand the generic
attribute format, forward the attributes regardless of whether they
understand the TLV's encoded in the attribute not. For this the
first bit in the Type field is reserved. If this bit is set then the
router MUST forward the TLV upstream in case the router does not
understand that type. If this bit is not set the router MUST NOT
forward the TLV upstream in the case the router does not understand
that type.
3.3. Attribute Hello Option
A new PIM source type has been defined to include the Attribute
field. This source type is included in a normal PIM Join. Each
router on a connected network needs to be able to understand and
parse the Join message. Therefore we include a new PIM hello option
to advertise our capability to parse and process the new source type.
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
We can only send a PIM Join which includes an attribute if ALL
routers on the network support the new option. (Even a router which
is not the upstream neighbor must be able parse to the packet in
order to do Join suppression or overriding.) Option value TBD.
Having the attribute hello option does not guarantee that all
neighbors understand all possible individual attributes. As there's
no immediate way to act on a neighbor's incapability to process
certain attribute types, it is not desired to have a hello option for
each possible attribute type.
3.4. Conflicting attributes
It's possible that a router receives conflicting attribute
information from different downstream routers. Conflicts only occur
with attributes of the same type. If two different attributes of two
different types are received they should both be processed and
forwarded.
( Edge A1 ) ( Edge B1 )---- [R1]
/ \ /
/ \ /
[S] ( Core )
\ / \
\ / \
( Edge A2 ) ( Edge B2 )---- [R2]
Figure 2
An example join attribute in this case is an exit router. There are
2 receivers for the same group connected to Edge B1 and B2. Suppose
that edge router B1 prefers A1 as the exit point and B2 prefers A2 as
exit point to reach the source S. If both Edge B1 and B2 send a Join
including an attribute to prefer their exit router in the network and
they cross the same core router, the core router will get conflicting
attribute information for the source. If this happens we use the
Attribute from the PIM adjacency with the numerically smallest IP
address. In the case of IPv6, the link local address will be used.
When two neighbors have the same IP address, either for IPv4 or IPv6,
the interface index must be used as a tie breaker. The attributes
from other sending routers may be kept around in case the best
attribute gets pruned or expires, we are able to immediately use the
second best attribute and converge quickly without waiting for the
next periodic update. If a TLV has its own definition for conflict
resolution it is preferred over the conflict resolution above.
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
3.5. Attribute Convergence
An attribute is included in a PIM Join message together with the
source information. If the attribute for this source is changed, we
trigger a new PIM Join message to the upstream router. This causes
the new attribute to be propagated. This new attribute implicitly
removes the old attribute upstream. If processing the new attribute
results in a change in the distribution tree, a PIM Prune message may
be sent. This PIM Prune does not need to carry any attribute, the
sender of the prune and the source and group information is enough to
identify the entry. The attribute information is removed immediately
and possibly a new attribute is chosen from the database if
available.
3.6. Multiple attributes
A PIM Join can contain multiple attributes. The attributes are
encoded as TLVs associated with a new PIM source type in the PIM
message. When a PIM Join with multiple attributes is received, each
type is processed separately. For each type, the first attribute of
that type is processed, and the action taken depends upon the type.
This may or may not result in the processing of the next attribute.
Attributes that the router understands but are not processed MUST be
passed upstream unchanged.
3.7. Applicability of the attributes
PIM Joins with attributes can be applied to both shared-trees rooted
at a Rendezvous Point (RP) and shortest-path trees as described in
[RFC4601].
3.8. PIM attribute packet format
3.8.1. PIM Join packet format
There is no space in the default PIM source encoding to include a
attribute field. Therefore we introduce a new source encoding type.
The attributes are formatted as TLV's. The new Encoded source
address looks like this:
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Addr Family | Encoding Type | Rsrvd |S|W|R| Mask Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address (Encoded-Source format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|S| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
|F|S| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
. . .
. . .
F bit, Forward Unknown TLV. If this bit is set the TLV is forwarded
regardless if the router understands the Type.
S bit, Bottom of Stack. If this bit is set then this is the last TLV
in the stack.
Type field of the TLV is 6 bits.
Length field of the TLV is 1 byte.
The other fields are the same as described in the RFC 4601.
[RFC4601].
The source TLV encoding type: TBD.
3.8.2. PIM Attribute Hello option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionType = TBD | OptionLength = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option type: TBD.
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires a new PIM Hello Option value and a new PIM
Join Encoding type.
5. Security Considerations
Security of the join attribute is only guaranteed by the security of
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
the PIM packet, so the security considerations for PIM join packets
as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601] apply here.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas, James Lingard, Bharat
Joshi, Marshall Eubanks, Pekka Savola and Tom Pusateri for their
input.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
7.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Arjen Boers
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Avda. Diagonal, 682
Barcelona 08034
Spain
Email: aboers@cisco.com
IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: ice@cisco.com
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
Eric Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, Ma 01719
Email: erosen@cisco.com
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The PIM TLV join attribute format October 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Boers, et al. Expires April 26, 2007 [Page 9]
