[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00                                                            
MBONE Deployment                                               P. Savola
Internet-Draft                                                 CSC/FUNET
Expires: August 16, 2005                               February 12, 2005

         Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery Problem Space

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


   Typically applications developers have requested static IANA
   assignments for the applications, even if the applications would
   typically be only used within a site, between consenting sites, or
   would not eventually even use multicast at all.  This memo describes
   this problem space, and summarizes a number of proposed approaches to
   mitigating these problems.

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Mitigation Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1   Locally Scoped Address Assignment by IANA  . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   Single Administration Address Discovery with Server
           Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3   Zero-configuration Single Administration Address
           Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4   Global Multiple Administration Address Discovery . . . . .  6
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  9

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

1.  Introduction

   Many applications have been written which leverage or could leverage
   multicast routing infrastructures, in one or more of the following
   scopes: (We'll get back to these later.)

   1.  link-local scope,

   2.  [geographical] site scope,

   3.  organization-local scope,

   4.  global scope, used between consenting sites/enterprises, also
       including cases like "inside a country", or

   5.  truly a global scope.

   Multicast-leveraging applications are often designed such that each
   multicast group has a "server", "session creator" or some other
   node(s) (or persons operating the nodes) which are in some way in
   control of the application.

   Both the "server" and "client end" of an application are currently
   typically provisioned with the group address using static IANA
   assignment [I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch].  Only rarely these apps are
   manually configured e.g.  with locally scoped addresses, especially
   the ones with a large number of clients.

   It would be highly desirable that the applications could easily use
   more dynamic, and more scoping-friedly mechanisms for discovering the
   appropriate addresses to use.

   All of these issues are only relevant to Any Source Multicast (ASM),
   as SSM requires this information is known a priori.

2.  Problem Statement

   The current IANA static assignment for these applications is a
   problem for multiple reasons:

   o  This messes up the multicast scoping plans which the site may
      have.  Each application's global address must be individually
      scoped and filtered in all the routers and in their access lists.
      Scoping should be easier.

   o  Static IANA assignments are required for each application; a
      permanant global assignment for each application which could use
      multicast depletes the resource quickly.

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

   o  This has issues with IPv6, because such IPv6 addresses can not be
      scalably routed in inter-domain routing; in intra-domain, this
      requires manual configuration or running BSR (for ff01::/16 or
      ff02::/16 or the like)

   o  "Intended for local only use" applications typically leak through
      to the IPv4 MSDP because there is no clear logic which ones should
      be global and which ones are local.

   There are at least four different proposed ways to mitigate this,
   from the least to most extensive:

   a.  Smaller-than-global single-administration address assignment by
       IANA (from 239/8 or elsewhere).

   b.  Smaller-than-global single-administration discovery, with the
       expectation that a locally scoped address is manually configured
       on the "server end".

   c.  Smaller-than-global single-administration discovery with complete

   d.  Global (but restricted) multi-administration discovery with some
       amount of manual configuration.

   We'll outline each proposed mitigation technique briefly below.

   NOTE: David Meyer's experience from being the designated expert for
   IANA assignments is that almost all of the requested multicast
   addresses have been such that the requestors would not have been
   satisfied if their application would only be restricted to operate
   within a site.

   If people agree on this, the first three mitigation techniques won't
   have significant impact, because the application developers won't
   implement the discovery in any case.  They will _still_ want to get
   the globally scoped addresses from IANA, instead of implementing the
   "service discovery inside an organization" -shim.

3.  Mitigation Techniques

   The generic goals from the application/deployment perspective are:

   o  Not depending on any uncommon external infrastructure besides the
      application itself (e.g., a MADCAP [RFC2730] server), so that the
      application can be deployed where MADCAP server is not present.
      I.e., this should be sufficiently lightweight to be coded in the
      application or be used by a simple application shim library.

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

   o  The application should "just work" from perspective of "client
      end" without any configuration.  "Server end" may or may not
      require configuration of an address.

   o  The presence of applications should be easily filterable at least
      at the edges of the network.

   o  Preferably it should also be easy to segment the use of
      application into the smallest possible scopes within the network,
      to avoid undue state and confusion in the network.

3.1  Locally Scoped Address Assignment by IANA

   If we ignore the first problem about local scoping, the easiest
   mitigation technique might be having IANA assign locally scoped
   addresses on FCFS basis (like UDP/TCP port numbers).  This could be
   done inside or outside of 239/8.

   This way the local applications could easily get a local assignment
   which could be easily filtered by site administrators at site

   This is slightly inflexible as the application developers could only
   tell whether the application's scope is link-local (there are very
   few of these), global, or something in between.  "Expanding ring
   search" inside the site-local scopes would not be possible.

   NOTE, based on DaveM's experience, it is not clear why the
   application designers would accept a local range instead of a global
   assignment, even if the application would primarily be used within a
   local scope.

3.2  Single Administration Address Discovery with Server Configuration

   The second mitigation technique would be to specify and implement a
   mechanism, requiring no infrastructure in the network, where the
   "server end" would be manually configured with appropriately selected
   locally-scoped addresses which the clients would use to discover the
   group address.

   The client ends should discover the smallest possible scope where the
   application is supported.

   A few notes on this method:

   o  One could characterize a potential solution as an easily
      implementable server shim at "server end" listening to a set

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

      well-known locally-scoped multicast addresses, which would respond
      to queries by "client end".

   o  How can the servers demultiplex "queries" sent to these addresses?
      Are these messages in SAP format or something simpler?  The query
      must have an identifier (e.g., done by hashing a name?) which the
      server uses to know the client is interested in the server's
      multicast transmission.

   o  How should the servers communicate back to the clients?  By
      replying with unicast (issues after bootup with lots of nodes) or
      do the clients also join the address (DoS potential, a very
      crowded group which all the servers at least need to subscribe

   Again, this does not solve the root problem; why would an application
   designer implement this mechanism when he/she wants to support global
   scoping as well?  IANA assignment will be requested in any case.

3.3  Zero-configuration Single Administration Address Discovery

   A slightly more extensive problem is the same as above, but assuming
   that the application must be completely zero-configurable.  That is,
   it must work without having to manually configure anything on the
   server end.

   This could be achieved e.g., by adding to the above a SAP-like
   address segments from which the addresses could be dynamically
   reserved.  This might not sit well on the organization's local
   scoping plans, however.

   However, it is worth considering whether this is really needed.  For
   link-local scope, this may be desirable as such requires no set-up of
   multicast routing.  But for larger scopes, is this really useful?  If
   there is no administrator to configure the address, likely there is
   no multicast infrastructure in the first place, or desire to run the
   application in multicast mode!

   Again, this does not solve the root problem.

3.4  Global Multiple Administration Address Discovery

   Most applications are such that they _can_ be run over
   site/organization boundaries (even if they typically would not be),
   so the application developers will want to support the most extensive
   scope.  There is no common local scope (even between
   organization-local and global) which could cover these disjoint
   global interconnections, so the applications must use global scope

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005


   To get away from static IANA assignments, there should be a
   lightweight multicast address discovery function which could be used
   e.g., in the embedded devices to discover the appropriate multicast
   address they should use.

   Obviously, the result could also be that the application should be
   restricted to a local scope, and use local scope addresses, but wider
   discovery should also be supported.

   This approach has a number of challenges, however.  It's difficult to
   visualize how multiple administrative domains could perform discovery
   in a desired manner automatically -- we have to assume that the sites
   might not want to tell about all of their local sessions to all the
   other sites (i.e., you may want to allow site A to discover session
   1, and site B to discover session 2, but not mix these).  In other
   words, there will likely need to be some manual control of what gets
   seen to the outside and what not.  This makes the mechanism more
   complicated, and requires more network operator management.

   Further attributes and requirements for this kind of approach remain
   to be figured out.

4.  Acknowledgements

   This memo grew out of the discussions in MBONED WG, where the
   participants were, among others, Beau Williamson, Albert Manfredi,
   Marshall Eubanks, John Kristoff, David Meyer, Stig Venaas, Rami
   Lehtonen, and Leonard Giuliano.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

   [[Note to the RFC-Editor: this section should be removed prior to

6.  Security Considerations

   As section Section 3.4 describes, the organizations will not want to
   expose all their sessions, or even knowledge that the organization is
   using a particular application, to the outside.  The confidentiality
   needs must be considered.

7.  References

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

7.1  Normative References

              Savola, P., "Overview of the Internet Multicast Addressing
              Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-00, November

7.2  Informative References

   [RFC2730]  Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
              Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
              December 1999.

Author's Address

   Pekka Savola

   Email: psavola@funet.fi

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Lightweight Multicast Address Discovery  February 2005

Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


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

Savola                   Expires August 16, 2005                [Page 9]