Softwire WG M. Xu
Internet-Draft Y. Cui
Intended status: Standards Track J. Wu
Expires: November 23, 2016 S. Yang
Tsinghua University
C. Metz
G. Shepherd
Cisco Systems
May 22, 2016
Softwire Mesh Multicast
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-13
Abstract
The Internet needs to support IPv4 and IPv6 packets. Both address
families and their related protocol suites support multicast of the
single-source and any-source varieties. During IPv6 transition,
there will be scenarios where a backbone network running one IP
address family internally (referred to as internal IP or I-IP) will
provide transit services to attached client networks running another
IP address family (referred to as external IP or E-IP). It is
expected that the I-IP backbone will offer unicast and multicast
transit services to the client E-IP networks.
Softwire Mesh is a solution to E-IP unicast and multicast support
across an I-IP backbone. This document describes the mechanism for
supporting Internet-style multicast across a set of E-IP and I-IP
networks supporting softwire mesh.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2016.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scenarios of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. IPv4-over-IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. IPv6-over-IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IPv4-over-IPv6 Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Mechanism Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Group Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Source Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Routing Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IPv6-over-IPv4 Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Mechanism Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Group Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Source Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Routing Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Control Plane Functions of AFBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. E-IP (*,G) State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. E-IP (S,G) State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. I-IP (S',G') State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. E-IP (S,G,rpt) State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.5. Inter-AFBR Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. SPT Switchover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.7. Other PIM Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.8. Other PIM States Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Data Plane Functions of AFBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Process and Forward Multicast Data . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Selecting a Tunneling Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Packet Format and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
9. Softwire Mesh Multicast Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
The Internet needs to support IPv4 and IPv6 packets. Both address
families and their related protocol suites support multicast of the
single-source and any-source varieties. During IPv6 transition,
there will be scenarios where a backbone network running one IP
address family internally (referred to as internal IP or I-IP) will
provide transit services to attached client networks running another
IP address family (referred to as external IP or E-IP).
The preferred solution is to leverage the multicast functions
inherent in the I-IP backbone, to efficiently forward client E-IP
multicast packets inside an I-IP core tree, which roots at one or
more ingress AFBR nodes and branches out to one or more egress AFBR
leaf nodes.
[RFC4925] outlines the requirements for the softwires mesh scenario
including the multicast. It is straightforward to envisage that
client E-IP multicast sources and receivers will reside in different
client E-IP networks connected to an I-IP backbone network. This
requires that the client E-IP source-rooted or shared tree should
traverse the I-IP backbone network.
One method to accomplish this is to re-use the multicast VPN approach
outlined in [RFC6513]. MVPN-like schemes can support the softwire
mesh scenario and achieve a "many-to-one" mapping between the E-IP
client multicast trees and the transit core multicast trees. The
advantage of this approach is that the number of trees in the I-IP
backbone network scales less than linearly with the number of E-IP
client trees. Corporate enterprise networks and by extension
multicast VPNs have been known to run applications that create too
many (S,G) states. Aggregation at the edge contains the (S,G) states
that need to be maintained by the network operator supporting the
customer VPNs. The disadvantage of this approach is the possible
inefficient bandwidth and resource utilization when multicast packets
are delivered to a receiver AFBR with no attached E-IP receivers.
Internet-style multicast is somewhat different in that the trees are
relatively sparse and source-rooted. The need for multicast
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
aggregation at the edge (where many customer multicast trees are
mapped into a few or one backbone multicast trees) does not exist and
to date has not been identified. Thus the need for a basic or closer
alignment with E-IP and I-IP multicast procedures emerges.
A framework on how to support such methods is described in [RFC5565].
In this document, a more detailed discussion supporting the "one-to-
one" mapping schemes for the IPv6 over IPv4 and IPv4 over IPv6
scenarios will be discussed.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
An example of a softwire mesh network supporting multicast is
illustrated in Figure 1. A multicast source S is located in one E-IP
client network, while candidate E-IP group receivers are located in
the same or different E-IP client networks that all share a common
I-IP transit network. When E-IP sources and receivers are not local
to each other, they can only communicate with each other through the
I-IP core. There may be several E-IP sources for some multicast
group residing in different client E-IP networks. In the case of
shared trees, the E-IP sources, receivers and RPs might be located in
different client E-IP networks. In a simple case the resources of
the I-IP core are managed by a single operator although the inter-
provider case is not precluded.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
._._._._. ._._._._.
| | | | --------
| E-IP | | E-IP |--|Source S|
| network | | network | --------
._._._._. ._._._._.
| |
AFBR upstream AFBR
| |
__+____________________+__
/ : : : : \
| : : : : | E-IP Multicast
| : I-IP transit core : | packets MUST
| : : : : | get across the
| : : : : | I-IP transit core
\_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
+ +
downstream AFBR downstream AFBR
| |
._._._._ ._._._._
-------- | | | | --------
|Receiver|-- | E-IP | | E-IP |--|Receiver|
-------- |network | |network | --------
._._._._ ._._._._
Figure 1: Softwire Mesh Multicast Framework
Terminologies used in this document:
o Address Family Border Router (AFBR) - A router interconnecting two
or more networks using different IP address families. In the context
of softwire mesh multicast, the AFBR runs E-IP and I-IP control
planes to maintain E-IP and I-IP multicast states respectively and
performs the appropriate encapsulation/decapsulation of client E-IP
multicast packets for transport across the I-IP core. An AFBR will
act as a source and/or receiver in an I-IP multicast tree.
o Upstream AFBR: The AFBR router that is located on the upper reaches
of a multicast data flow.
o Downstream AFBR: The AFBR router that is located on the lower
reaches of a multicast data flow.
o I-IP (Internal IP): This refers to the form of IP (i.e., either
IPv4 or IPv6) that is supported by the core (or backbone) network.
An I-IPv6 core network runs IPv6 and an I-IPv4 core network runs
IPv4.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
o E-IP (External IP): This refers to the form of IP (i.e. either IPv4
or IPv6) that is supported by the client network(s) attached to the
I-IP transit core. An E-IPv6 client network runs IPv6 and an E-IPv4
client network runs IPv4.
o I-IP core tree: A distribution tree rooted at one or more AFBR
source nodes and branched out to one or more AFBR leaf nodes. An
I-IP core tree is built using standard IP or MPLS multicast signaling
protocols operating exclusively inside the I-IP core network. An
I-IP core tree is used to forward E-IP multicast packets belonging to
E-IP trees across the I-IP core. Another name for an I-IP core tree
is multicast or multipoint softwire.
o E-IP client tree: A distribution tree rooted at one or more hosts
or routers located inside a client E-IP network and branched out to
one or more leaf nodes located in the same or different client E-IP
networks.
o uPrefix64: The /96 unicast IPv6 prefix for constructing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 source address in IPv6-over-IPv4 scenario.
o uPrefix46: The /96 unicast IPv6 prefix for constructing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 source address in IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario.
o mPrefix46: The /96 multicast IPv6 prefix for constructing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address in IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario.
o Inter-AFBR signaling: A mechanism used by downstream AFBRs to send
PIM messages to the upstream AFBR.
3. Scenarios of Interest
This section describes the two different scenarios where softwires
mesh multicast will apply.
3.1. IPv4-over-IPv6
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
._._._._. ._._._._.
| IPv4 | | IPv4 | --------
| Client | | Client |--|Source S|
| network | | network | --------
._._._._. ._._._._.
| |
AFBR upstream AFBR
| |
__+____________________+__
/ : : : : \
| : : : : |
| : IPv6 transit core : |
| : : : : |
| : : : : |
\_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
+ +
downstream AFBR downstream AFBR
| |
._._._._ ._._._._
-------- | IPv4 | | IPv4 | --------
|Receiver|-- | Client | | Client |--|Receiver|
-------- | network| | network| --------
._._._._ ._._._._
Figure 2: IPv4-over-IPv6 Scenario
In this scenario, the E-IP client networks run IPv4 and I-IP core
runs IPv6. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.
Because of the much larger IPv6 group address space, it will not be a
problem to map individual client E-IPv4 tree to a specific I-IPv6
core tree. This simplifies operations on the AFBR because it becomes
possible to algorithmically map an IPv4 group/source address to an
IPv6 group/source address and vice-versa.
The IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario is an emerging requirement as network
operators build out native IPv6 backbone networks. These networks
naturally support native IPv6 services and applications but it is
with near 100% certainty that legacy IPv4 networks handling unicast
and multicast MUST be accommodated.
3.2. IPv6-over-IPv4
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
._._._._. ._._._._.
| IPv6 | | IPv6 | --------
| Client | | Client |--|Source S|
| network | | network | --------
._._._._. ._._._._.
| |
AFBR upstream AFBR
| |
__+____________________+__
/ : : : : \
| : : : : |
| : IPv4 transit core : |
| : : : : |
| : : : : |
\_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
+ +
downstream AFBR downstream AFBR
| |
._._._._ ._._._._
-------- | IPv6 | | IPv6 | --------
|Receiver|-- | Client | | Client |--|Receiver|
-------- | network| | network| --------
._._._._ ._._._._
Figure 3: IPv6-over-IPv4 Scenario
In this scenario, the E-IP Client Networks run IPv6 while the I-IP
core runs IPv4. This scenario is illustrated in Figure 3.
IPv6 multicast group addresses are longer than IPv4 multicast group
addresses. It will not be possible to perform an algorithmic IPv6 -
to - IPv4 address mapping without the risk of multiple IPv6 group
addresses mapped to the same IPv4 address resulting in unnecessary
bandwidth and resource consumption. Therefore additional efforts
will be REQUIRED to ensure that client E-IPv6 multicast packets can
be injected into the correct I-IPv4 multicast trees at the AFBRs.
This clear mismatch in IPv6 and IPv4 group address lengths means that
it will not be possible to perform a one-to-one mapping between IPv6
and IPv4 group addresses unless the IPv6 group address is scoped.
As mentioned earlier, this scenario is common in the MVPN
environment. As native IPv6 deployments and multicast applications
emerge from the outer reaches of the greater public IPv4 Internet, it
is envisaged that the IPv6 over IPv4 softwire mesh multicast scenario
will be a necessary feature supported by network operators.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
4. IPv4-over-IPv6 Mechanism
4.1. Mechanism Overview
Routers in the client E-IPv4 networks contain routes to all other
client E-IPv4 networks. Through the set of known and deployed
mechanisms, E-IPv4 hosts and routers have discovered or learnt of
(S,G) or (*,G) IPv4 addresses. Any I-IPv6 multicast state
instantiated in the core is referred to as (S',G') or (*,G') and is
certainly separated from E-IPv4 multicast state.
Suppose a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM Join/Prune message
from the E-IPv4 network for either an (S,G) tree or a (*,G) tree.
The AFBR can translate the E-IPv4 PIM message into an I-IPv6 PIM
message with the latter being directed towards I-IP IPv6 address of
the upstream AFBR. When the I-IPv6 PIM message arrives at the
upstream AFBR, it MUST be translated back into an E-IPv4 PIM message.
The result of these actions is the construction of E-IPv4 trees and a
corresponding I-IP tree in the I-IP network.
In this case, it is incumbent upon the AFBR routers to perform PIM
message conversions in the control plane and IP group address
conversions or mappings in the data plane. It becomes possible to
devise an algorithmic one-to-one IPv4-to-IPv6 address mapping at
AFBRs.
4.2. Group Address Mapping
For IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario, a simple algorithmic mapping between
IPv4 multicast group addresses and IPv6 group addresses is supported.
[RFC7371] has already defined an applicable format. Figure 4 is the
reminder of the format:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96-----------127|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| mPrefix46 |group address |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 4: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format
The mPrefix46 for SSM mode is also defined in Section 4.1 of
[RFC7371] :
o ff3x:0:8000::/96 ('x' is any valid scope)
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
With this scheme, each IPv4 multicast address can be mapped into an
IPv6 multicast address (with the assigned prefix), and each IPv6
multicast address with the assigned prefix can be mapped into IPv4
multicast address.
4.3. Source Address Mapping
There are two kinds of multicast --- ASM and SSM. Considering that
I-IP network and E-IP network may support different kind of
multicast, the source address translation rules could be very complex
to support all possible scenarios. But since SSM can be implemented
with a strict subset of the PIM-SM protocol mechanisms [RFC7761], we
can treat I-IP core as SSM-only to make it as simple as possible,
then there remains only two scenarios to be discussed in detail:
o E-IP network supports SSM
One possible way to make sure that the translated I-IPv6 PIM
message reaches upstream AFBR is to set S' to a virtual IPv6
address that leads to the upstream AFBR. Figure 5 is the
recommended address format based on [RFC6052]:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96-----------127|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| prefix |v4(32) | u | suffix |source address |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|<------------------uPrefix46------------------>|
Figure 5: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format
In this address format, the "prefix" field contains a "Well-Known"
prefix or an ISP-defined prefix. An existing "Well-Known" prefix
is 64:ff9b, which is defined in [RFC6052]; "v4" field is the IP
address of one of upstream AFBR's E-IPv4 interfaces; "u" field is
defined in [RFC4291], and MUST be set to zero; "suffix" field is
reserved for future extensions and SHOULD be set to zero; "source
address" field stores the original S. We call the overall /96
prefix ("prefix" field and "v4" field and "u" field and "suffix"
field altogether) "uPrefix46".
o E-IP network supports ASM
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
The (S,G) source list entry and the (*,G) source list entry only
differ in that the latter has both the WC and RPT bits of the
Encoded-Source-Address set, while the former is all cleared (See
Section 4.9.5.1 of [RFC7761]). So we can translate source list
entries in (*,G) messages into source list entries in (S'G')
messages by applying the format specified in Figure 5 and clearing
both the WC and RPT bits at downstream AFBRs, and translate them
back at upstream AFBRs vice-versa.
4.4. Routing Mechanism
In the mesh multicast scenario, routing information is REQUIRED to be
distributed among AFBRs to make sure that PIM messages that a
downstream AFBR propagates reach the right upstream AFBR.
To make it feasible, the /32 prefix in "IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual
Source Address Format" MUST be known to every AFBR, and every AFBR
should not only announce the IP address of one of its E-IPv4
interfaces presented in the "v4" field to other AFBRs by MPBGP, but
also announce the corresponding uPrefix46 to the I-IPv6 network.
Since every IP address of upstream AFBR's E-IPv4 interface is
different from each other, every uPrefix46 that AFBR announces MUST
be different, and uniquely identifies each AFBR. "uPrefix46" is an
IPv6 prefix, and the distribution of it is the same as the
distribution in the traditional mesh unicast scenario. But since
"v4" field is an E-IPv4 address, and BGP messages are NOT tunneled
through softwires or through any other mechanism as specified in
[RFC5565], AFBRs MUST be able to transport and encode/decode BGP
messages that are carried over I-IPv6, whose NLRI and NH are of
E-IPv4 address family.
In this way, when a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM (S,G)
message, it can translate this message into (S',G') by looking up the
IP address of the corresponding AFBR's E-IPv4 interface. Since the
uPrefix46 of S' is unique, and is known to every router in the I-IPv6
network, the translated message will eventually arrive at the
corresponding upstream AFBR, and the upstream AFBR can translate the
message back to (S,G). When a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM
(*,G) message, S' can be generated according to the format specified
in Figure 4, with "source address" field set to *(the IPv4 address of
RP). The translated message will eventually arrive at the
corresponding upstream AFBR. Since every PIM router within a PIM
domain MUST be able to map a particular multicast group address to
the same RP (see Section 4.7 of [RFC7761]), when this upstream AFBR
checks the "source address" field of the message, it will find the
IPv4 address of RP, so this upstream AFBR judges that this is
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
originally a (*,G) message, then it translates the message back to
the (*,G) message and processes it.
5. IPv6-over-IPv4 Mechanism
5.1. Mechanism Overview
Routers in the client E-IPv6 networks contain routes to all other
client E-IPv6 networks. Through the set of known and deployed
mechanisms, E-IPv6 hosts and routers have discovered or learnt of
(S,G) or (*,G) IPv6 addresses. Any I-IP multicast state instantiated
in the core is referred to as (S',G') or (*,G') and is certainly
separated from E-IP multicast state.
This particular scenario introduces unique challenges. Unlike the
IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario, it is impossible to map all of the IPv6
multicast address space into the IPv4 address space to address the
one-to-one Softwire Multicast requirement. To coordinate with the
"IPv4-over-IPv6" scenario and keep the solution as simple as
possible, one possible solution to this problem is to limit the scope
of the E-IPv6 source addresses for mapping, such as applying a "Well-
Known" prefix or an ISP-defined prefix.
5.2. Group Address Mapping
To keep one-to-one group address mapping simple, the group address
range of E-IP IPv6 can be reduced in a number of ways to limit the
scope of addresses that need to be mapped into the I-IP IPv4 space.
A recommended multicast address format is defined in [RFC7371]. The
high order bits of the E-IPv6 address range will be fixed for mapping
purposes. With this scheme, each IPv4 multicast address can be
mapped into an IPv6 multicast address (with the assigned prefix), and
each IPv6 multicast address with the assigned prefix can be mapped
into IPv4 multicast address.
5.3. Source Address Mapping
There are two kinds of multicast --- ASM and SSM. Considering that
I-IP network and E-IP network may support different kind of
multicast, the source address translation rules could be very complex
to support all possible scenarios. But since SSM can be implemented
with a strict subset of the PIM-SM protocol mechanisms [RFC7761], we
can treat I-IP core as SSM-only to make it as simple as possible,
then there remains only two scenarios to be discussed in detail:
o E-IP network supports SSM
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
To make sure that the translated I-IPv4 PIM message reaches the
upstream AFBR, we need to set S' to an IPv4 address that leads to
the upstream AFBR. But due to the non-"one-to-one" mapping of
E-IPv6 to I-IPv4 unicast address, the upstream AFBR is unable to
remap the I-IPv4 source address to the original E-IPv6 source
address without any constraints.
We apply a fixed IPv6 prefix and static mapping to solve this
problem. A recommended source address format is defined in
[RFC6052]. Figure 6 is the reminder of the format:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96-----------127|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| uPrefix64 |source address |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 6: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Source Address Format
In this address format, the "uPrefix64" field starts with a "Well-
Known" prefix or an ISP-defined prefix. An existing "Well-Known"
prefix is 64:ff9b/32, which is defined in [RFC6052]; "source
address" field is the corresponding I-IPv4 source address.
o E-IP network supports ASM
The (S,G) source list entry and the (*,G) source list entry only
differ in that the latter has both the WC and RPT bits of the
Encoded-Source-Address set, while the former is all cleared (See
Section 4.9.5.1 of [RFC7761]). So we can translate source list
entries in (*,G) messages into source list entries in (S',G')
messages by applying the format specified in Figure 5 and setting
both the WC and RPT bits at downstream AFBRs, and translate them
back at upstream AFBRs vice-versa. Here, the E-IPv6 address of RP
MUST follow the format specified in Figure 6. RP' is the upstream
AFBR that locates between RP and the downstream AFBR.
5.4. Routing Mechanism
In the mesh multicast scenario, routing information is REQUIRED to be
distributed among AFBRs to make sure that PIM messages that a
downstream AFBR propagates reach the right upstream AFBR.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
To make it feasible, the /96 uPrefix64 MUST be known to every AFBR,
every E-IPv6 address of sources that support mesh multicast MUST
follow the format specified in Figure 6, and the corresponding
upstream AFBR of this source MUST announce the I-IPv4 address in
"source address" field of this source's IPv6 address to the I-IPv4
network. Since uPrefix64 is static and unique in IPv6-over-IPv4
scenario, there is no need to distribute it using BGP. The
distribution of "source address" field of multicast source addresses
is a pure I-IPv4 process and no more specification is needed.
In this way, when a downstream AFBR receives a (S,G) message, it can
translate the message into (S',G') by simply taking off the prefix in
S. Since S' is known to every router in I-IPv4 network, the
translated message will eventually arrive at the corresponding
upstream AFBR, and the upstream AFBR can translate the message back
to (S,G) by appending the prefix to S'. When a downstream AFBR
receives a (*,G) message, it can translate it into (S',G') by simply
taking off the prefix in *(the E-IPv6 address of RP). Since S' is
known to every router in I-IPv4 network, the translated message will
eventually arrive at RP'. And since every PIM router within a PIM
domain MUST be able to map a particular multicast group address to
the same RP (see Section 4.7 of [RFC7761]), RP' knows that S' is the
mapped I-IPv4 address of RP, so RP' will translate the message back
to (*,G) by appending the prefix to S' and propagate it towards RP.
6. Control Plane Functions of AFBR
The AFBRs are responsible for the following functions:
6.1. E-IP (*,G) State Maintenance
When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(*,G) message to an I-IP
upstream router, the AFBR MUST translate Join/Prune(*,G) messages
into Join/Prune(S',G') messages following the rules specified above,
then send the latter.
6.2. E-IP (S,G) State Maintenance
When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(S,G) message to an I-IP
upstream router, the AFBR MUST translate Join/Prune(S,G) messages
into Join/Prune(S',G') messages following the rules specified above,
then send the latter.
6.3. I-IP (S',G') State Maintenance
It is possible that I-IP transit core runs other non-transit I-IP
PIM-SSM instance. Since the translated source address starts with
the unique "Well-Known" prefix or the ISP-defined prefix that SHOULD
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
NOT be used otherwise, mesh multicast will not influence non-transit
PIM-SSM multicast at all. When one AFBR receives an I-IP (S',G')
message, it MUST check S'. If S' starts with the unique prefix, it
means that this message is actually a translated E-IP (S,G) or (*,G)
message, then the AFBR MUST translate this message back to E-IP PIM
message and process it.
6.4. E-IP (S,G,rpt) State Maintenance
When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(S,G,rpt) message to an
I-IP upstream router, the AFBR MUST do as specified in Section 6.5
and Section 6.6.
6.5. Inter-AFBR Signaling
Assume that one downstream AFBR has joined a RPT of (*,G) and a SPT
of (S,G), and decide to perform a SPT switchover. According to
[RFC7761], it SHOULD propagate a Prune(S,G,rpt) message along with
the periodical Join(*,G) message upstream towards RP. Unfortunately,
routers in I-IP transit core are not supposed to understand (S,G,rpt)
messages since I-IP transit core is treated as SSM-only. As a
result, this downstream AFBR is unable to prune S from this RPT, then
it will receive two copies of the same data of (S,G). In order to
solve this problem, we introduce a new mechanism for downstream AFBRs
to inform upstream AFBRs of pruning any given S from RPT.
When a downstream AFBR wishes to propagate a (S,G,rpt) message
upstream, it SHOULD encapsulate the (S,G,rpt) message, then send the
encapsulated unicast message to the corresponding upstream AFBR,
which we call "RP'".
When RP' receives this encapsulated message, it SHOULD decapsulate
this message as what it does in the unicast scenario, and get the
original (S,G,rpt) message. The incoming interface of this message
may be different from the outgoing interface which propagates
multicast data to the corresponding downstream AFBR, and there may be
other downstream AFBRs that need to receive multicast data of (S,G)
from this incoming interface, so RP' SHOULD NOT simply process this
message as specified in [RFC7761] on the incoming interface.
To solve this problem and keep the solution as simple as possible, we
introduce an "interface agent" to process all the encapsulated
(S,G,rpt) messages the upstream AFBR receives, and prune S from the
RPT of group G when no downstream AFBR wants to receive multicast
data of (S,G) along the RPT. In this way, we do insure that
downstream AFBRs will not miss any multicast data that they need, at
the cost of duplicated multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT received
by SPT-switched-over downstream AFBRs, if there exists at least one
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
downstream AFBR that has not yet sent Prune(S,G,rpt) messages to the
upstream AFBR. The following diagram shows an example of how an
"interface agent" MAY be implemented:
+----------------------------------------+
| |
| +-----------+----------+ |
| | PIM-SM | UDP | |
| +-----------+----------+ |
| ^ | |
| | | |
| | v |
| +----------------------+ |
| | I/F Agent | |
| +----------------------+ |
| PIM ^ | multicast |
| messages | | data |
| | +-------------+---+ |
| +--+--|-----------+ | |
| | v | v |
| +--------- + +----------+ |
| | I-IP I/F | | I-IP I/F | |
| +----------+ +----------+ |
| ^ | ^ | |
| | | | | |
+--------|-----|----------|-----|--------+
| v | v
Figure 7: Interface Agent Implementation Example
Figure 7 shows an example of interface agent implementation where we
choose UDP encapsulation. The interface agent has two
responsibilities: In the control plane, it SHOULD work as a real
interface that has joined (*,G) in representative of all the I-IP
interfaces which are outgoing interfaces of (*,G) state machine, and
process the (S,G,rpt) messages received from all the I-IP interfaces.
The interface agent maintains downstream (S,G,rpt) state machines of
every downstream AFBR, and submits Prune(S,G,rpt) messages to the
PIM-SM module only when every (S,G,rpt) state machine is at Prune(P)
or PruneTmp(P') state, which means that no downstream AFBR wants to
receive multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT of G. Once a (S,G,rpt)
state machine changes to NoInfo(NI) state, which means that the
corresponding downstream AFBR has changed its mind to receive
multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT again, the interface agent
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
SHOULD send a Join(S,G,rpt) to PIM-SM module immediately; In the data
plane, upon receiving a multicast data packet, the interface agent
SHOULD encapsulate it at first, then propagate the encapsulated
packet onto every I-IP interface.
NOTICE: There may exist an E-IP neighbor of RP' that has joined the
RPT of G, so the per-interface state machine for receiving E-IP Join/
Prune(S,G,rpt) messages SHOULD still take effect.
6.6. SPT Switchover
After a new AFBR expresses its interest in receiving traffic destined
for a multicast group, it will receive all the data from the RPT at
first. At this time, every downstream AFBR will receive multicast
data from any source from this RPT, in spite of whether they have
switched over to SPT of some source(s) or not.
To minimize this redundancy, it is recommended that every AFBR's
SwitchToSptDesired(S,G) function employs the "switch on first packet"
policy. In this way, the delay of switchover to SPT is kept as
little as possible, and after the moment that every AFBR has
performed the SPT switchover for every S of group G, no data will be
forwarded in the RPT of G, thus no more redundancy will be produced.
6.7. Other PIM Message Types
Apart from Join or Prune, there exists other message types including
Register, Register-Stop, Hello and Assert. Register and Register-
Stop messages are sent by unicast, while Hello and Assert messages
are only used between directly linked routers to negotiate with each
other. It is not necessary to translate them for forwarding, thus
the process of these messages is out of scope for this document.
6.8. Other PIM States Maintenance
Apart from states mentioned above, there exists other states
including (*,*,RP) and I-IP (*,G') state. Since we treat I-IP core
as SSM-only, the maintenance of these states is out of scope for this
document.
7. Data Plane Functions of AFBR
7.1. Process and Forward Multicast Data
On receiving multicast data from upstream routers, the AFBR looks up
its forwarding table to check the IP address of each outgoing
interface. If there exists at least one outgoing interface whose IP
address family is different from the incoming interface, the AFBR
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
MUST encapsulate/decapsulate this packet and forward it to such
outgoing interface(s), then forward the data to other outgoing
interfaces without encapsulation/decapsulation.
When a downstream AFBR that has already switched over to SPT of S
receives an encapsulated multicast data packet of (S,G) along the
RPT, it SHOULD silently drop this packet.
7.2. Selecting a Tunneling Technology
Choosing tunneling technology depends on the policies configured at
AFBRs. It is recommended that all AFBRs use the same technology,
otherwise some AFBRs may not be able to decapsulate encapsulated
packets from other AFBRs that use a different tunneling technology.
7.3. TTL
Processing of TTL depends on the tunneling technology, and it is out
of scope of this document.
7.4. Fragmentation
The encapsulation performed by upstream AFBR will increase the size
of packets. As a result, the outgoing I-IP link MTU may not
accommodate the extra size. As it is not always possible for core
operators to increase the MTU of every link. Fragmentation and
reassembling of encapsulated packets MUST be supported by AFBRs.
8. Packet Format and Translation
Because PIM-SM Specification is independent of the underlying unicast
routing protocol, the packet format in Section 4.9 of [RFC7761]
remains the same, except that the group address and source address
MUST be translated when traversing AFBR.
For example, Figure 8 shows the register-stop message format in IPv4
and IPv6 address family.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Group Address (Encoded-Group format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(1). IPv4 Register-Stop Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Group Address (Encoded-Group format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(2). IPv6 Register-Stop Message Format
Figure 8: Register-Stop Message Format
In Figure 8, the semantics of fields "PIM Ver", "Type", "Reserved",
"Checksum" remain the same.
IPv4 Group Address (Encoded-Group format): The encoded-group format
of the IPv4 group address mentioned in Section 4.2 and 5.2.
IPv4 Source Address (Encoded-Group format): The encoded-unicast
format of the IPv4 source address mentioned in Section 4.3 and 5.3.
IPv6 Group Address (Encoded-Group format): The encoded-group format
of the IPv6 group address mentioned in Section 4.2 and 5.2.
IPv6 Source Address (Encoded-Group format): The encoded-unicast
format of the IPv6 source address mentioned in Section 4.3 and 5.3.
9. Softwire Mesh Multicast Encapsulation
Softwire mesh multicast encapsulation does not require the use of any
one particular encapsulation mechanism. Rather, it MUST accommodate
a variety of different encapsulation mechanisms, and MUST allow the
use of encapsulation mechanisms mentioned in [RFC4925].
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
10. Security Considerations
Some schemes will place heavy burden on routers, which can be used by
attackers as a tool when they carry out DDoS attack. Compared with
[RFC4925], the security concerns SHOULD be considered more carefully.
The attackers can set up many multicast trees in the edge networks,
causing too many multicast states in the core network.
Besides, this document does not introduce any new security concern in
addition to what is discussed in [RFC4925] and [RFC7761].
11. IANA Considerations
When AFBRs perform address mapping, they follow some predefined
rules, especially the IPv6 prefix for source address mapping should
be predefined, such that ingress AFBRs and egress AFBRs can complete
the mapping procedure correctly. The IPv6 prefix for translation can
be unified within only the transit core, or within global area. In
the later condition, the prefix MUST be assigned by IANA.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4925] Li, X., Ed., Dawkins, S., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and A.
Durand, Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4925, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4925>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC7371] Boucadair, M. and S. Venaas, "Updates to the IPv6
Multicast Addressing Architecture", RFC 7371,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7371, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7371>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Wenlong Chen, Xuan Chen, Alain Durand, Yiu Lee, Jacni Qin and Stig
Venaas provided useful input into this document.
Authors' Addresses
Mingwei Xu
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: xmw@cernet.edu.cn
Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft softwire mesh multicast May 2016
Jianping Wu
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Shu Yang
Tsinghua University
Graduate School at Shenzhen
Shenzhen 518055
P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: yangshu@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Chris Metz
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1-408-525-3275
Email: chmetz@cisco.com
Greg Shepherd
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1-541-912-9758
Email: shep@cisco.com
Xu, et al. Expires November 23, 2016 [Page 22]