Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network
RFC 8114
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2017; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Jacni Qin , Christian Jacquenet , Yiu Lee , Qian Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2017-03-17 | ||
| Replaces | draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ian Farrer | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-11-04) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8114 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Terry Manderson | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 8114 Orange
Category: Standards Track C. Qin
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
C. Jacquenet
Orange
Y. Lee
Comcast
Q. Wang
China Telecom
March 2017
Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over
an IPv6 Multicast Network
Abstract
This document specifies a solution for the delivery of IPv4 multicast
services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast network. The
solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme
and uses an IPv6 multicast distribution tree to deliver IPv4
multicast traffic. The solution is particularly useful for the
delivery of multicast service offerings to customers serviced by
Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8114.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Multicast Distribution Tree Computation . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Multicast Data Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IPv4/IPv6 Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Multicast Address Translation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Textual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Multicast B4 (mB4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. IGMP-MLD Interworking Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Multicast Data Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Host Built-In mB4 Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Preserve the Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Multicast AFTR (mAFTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Processing PIM Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Switching from Shared Tree to Shortest Path Tree . . . . 15
7.4. Multicast Data Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Other Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.1. The IPv6 DR is Co-located with the mAFTR . . . . . . 16
8.1.2. The IPv4 DR is Co-located with the mAFTR . . . . . . 16
8.2. Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. mAFTR Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. Static vs. Dynamic PIM Triggering . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Firewall Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Use Case: IPTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix B. Older Versions of Group Membership Management
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
1. Introduction
DS-Lite [RFC6333] is an IPv4 address-sharing technique that enables
operators to multiplex public IPv4 addresses while provisioning only
IPv6 to users. A typical DS-Lite scenario is the delivery of an IPv4
service to an IPv4 user over an IPv6 network (denoted as a 4-6-4
scenario). [RFC6333] covers unicast services exclusively.
This document specifies a generic solution for the delivery of IPv4
multicast services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast network.
The solution was developed with DS-Lite in mind (see more discussion
below). However, the solution is not limited to DS-Lite; it can also
be applied in other deployment contexts, such as the ones described
in [RFC7596] and [RFC7597].
If customers have to access IPv4 multicast-based services through a
DS-Lite environment, Address Family Transition Router (AFTR) devices
will have to process all the Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) Report messages [RFC2236] [RFC3376] that have been forwarded
by the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) into the IPv4-in-IPv6
tunnels. From that standpoint, AFTR devices are likely to behave as
a replication point for downstream multicast traffic, and the
multicast packets will be replicated for each tunnel endpoint that
IPv4 receivers are connected to.
This kind of DS-Lite environment raises two major issues:
1. The IPv6 network loses the benefits of efficient multicast
traffic forwarding because it is unable to deterministically
replicate the data as close to the receivers as possible. As a
consequence, the downstream bandwidth in the IPv6 network will be
vastly consumed by sending multicast data over a unicast
infrastructure.
2. The AFTR is responsible for replicating multicast traffic and
forwarding it into each tunnel endpoint connecting IPv4 receivers
that have explicitly asked for the corresponding content. This
process may significantly consume the AFTR's resources and
overload the AFTR.
This document specifies an extension to the DS-Lite model to deliver
IPv4 multicast services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast-
enabled network.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
This document describes a stateless translation mechanism that
supports either Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) or Any-Source
Multicast (ASM) operation. The recommendation in Section 1 of
[RFC4607] is that multicast services use SSM where possible; the
operation of the translation mechanism is also simplified when SSM is
used, e.g., considerations for placement of the IPv6 Rendezvous Point
(RP) are no longer relevant.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
IPv4-embedded IPv6 address: an IPv6 address that embeds a 32-bit-
encoded IPv4 address. An IPv4-embedded IPv6 address can be
unicast or multicast.
mPrefix64: a dedicated multicast IPv6 prefix for constructing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast addresses. mPrefix64 can be of two
types: ASM_mPrefix64 used in Any-Source Multicast (ASM) mode or
SSM_mPrefix64 used in Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) mode
[RFC4607]. The size of this prefix is /96.
Note: "64" is used as an abbreviation for IPv6-IPv4
interconnection.
uPrefix64: a dedicated IPv6 unicast prefix for constructing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 unicast addresses [RFC6052]. This prefix may
be either the Well-Known Prefix (i.e., 64:ff9b::/96) or a Network-
Specific Prefix (NSP).
Multicast AFTR (mAFTR): a functional entity that supports an
IPv4-IPv6 multicast interworking function (refer to Figure 3). It
receives and encapsulates the IPv4 multicast packets into IPv4-in-
IPv6 packets. Also, it behaves as the corresponding IPv6
multicast source for the encapsulated IPv4-in-IPv6 packets.
Multicast Basic Bridging BroadBand (mB4): a functional entity that
supports an IGMP-MLD Interworking function (refer to Section 6.1)
that translates the IGMP messages into the corresponding Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) messages and sends the MLD messages to
the IPv6 network. In addition, the mB4 decapsulates IPv4-in-IPv6
multicast packets.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
PIMv4: refers to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) when deployed
in an IPv4 infrastructure (i.e., IPv4 transport capabilities are
used to exchange PIM messages).
PIMv6: refers to PIM when deployed in an IPv6 infrastructure (i.e.,
IPv6 transport capabilities are used to exchange PIM messages).
Host portion of the MLD protocol: refers to the part of MLD that
applies to all multicast address listeners (Section 6 of
[RFC3810]). As a reminder, MLD specifies separate behaviors for
multicast address listeners (i.e., hosts or routers that listen to
multicast packets) and multicast routers.
Router portion of IGMP: refers to the part of IGMP that is performed
by multicast routers (Section 6 of [RFC3376]).
DR: refers to the Designated Router as defined in [RFC7761].
3. Scope
This document focuses only on the subscription to IPv4 multicast
groups and the delivery of IPv4-formatted content to IPv4 receivers
over an IPv6-only network. In particular, only the following case is
covered:
IPv4 receivers access IPv4 multicast content over IPv6-only
multicast-enabled networks.
This document does not cover the source/receiver heuristics, where
IPv4 receivers can also behave as IPv4 multicast sources. This
document assumes that hosts behind the mB4 are IPv4 multicast
receivers only. Also, the document covers the host built-in mB4
function.
4. Solution Overview
In the DS-Lite specification [RFC6333], an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel is
used to carry bidirectional IPv4 unicast traffic between a B4 and an
AFTR. The solution specified in this document provides an IPv4-in-
IPv6 encapsulation scheme to deliver unidirectional IPv4 multicast
traffic from an mAFTR to an mB4.
An overview of the solution is provided in this section; it is
intended as an introduction to how it works but is not normative.
For the normative specifications of the two new functional elements,
mB4 and mAFTR (Figure 1), refer to Sections 6 and 7.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
------------
/ \
| IPv4 network |
\ /
------------
IPv4 multicast : | ^ PIMv4 Join
v | :
+-------------+
| mAFTR |
+-------------+
IPv6 multicast |:| | ^ PIMv6 Join (PIMv6
(IPv4 embedded) |:| | : routers in between)
------------
/ \
| IPv6 network |
\ /
------------
|:| | ^ MLD Report
|v| | :
+-----------+
| mB4 |
+-----------+
IPv4 multicast : | ^ IGMP Report
v | :
+-----------+
| IPv4 |
| receiver |
+-----------+
Figure 1: Functional Architecture
4.1. IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Prefixes
In order to map the addresses of IPv4 multicast traffic with IPv6
multicast addresses, an IPv6 multicast prefix (mPrefix64) and an IPv6
unicast prefix (uPrefix64) are provided to the mAFTR and the mB4
elements, both of which contribute to the computation and the
maintenance of the IPv6 multicast distribution tree that extends the
IPv4 multicast distribution tree into the IPv6 multicast network.
The IPv4/IPv6 address mapping is stateless.
The mAFTR and the mB4 use mPrefix64 to convert an IPv4 multicast
address (G4) into an IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address (G6). The
mAFTR and the mB4 use uPrefix64 to convert an IPv4 source address
(S4) into an IPv4-embedded IPv6 address (S6). The mAFTR and the mB4
must use the same mPrefix64 and uPrefix64; they also run the same
algorithm for building IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses. Refer to
Section 5 for more details about the address mapping.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
4.2. Multicast Distribution Tree Computation
When an IPv4 receiver connected to the device that embeds the mB4
capability wants to subscribe to an IPv4 multicast group, it sends an
IGMP Report message towards the mB4. The mB4 creates the IPv6
multicast group (G6) address using mPrefix64 and the original IPv4
multicast group address. If the receiver sends a source-specific
IGMPv3 Report message, the mB4 will create the IPv6 source address
(S6) using uPrefix64 and the original IPv4 source address.
The mB4 uses the G6 (and both S6 and G6 in SSM) to create the
corresponding MLD Report message. The mB4 sends the Report message
towards the IPv6 network. The PIMv6 DR receives the MLD Report
message and sends the PIMv6 Join message to join the IPv6 multicast
distribution tree. It can send either PIMv6 Join (*,G6) in ASM or
PIMv6 Join (S6,G6) in SSM to the mAFTR.
The mAFTR acts as the IPv6 DR to which the uPrefix64-derived S6 is
connected. The mAFTR will receive the source-specific PIMv6 Join
message (S6,G6) from the IPv6 multicast network. If the mAFTR is the
Rendezvous Point (RP) of G6, it will receive the any-source PIMv6
Join message (*,G6) from the IPv6 multicast network. If the mAFTR is
not the RP of G6, it will send the PIM Register message to the RP of
G6 located in the IPv6 multicast network. For the sake of
simplicity, it is recommended to configure the mAFTR as the RP for
the IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast groups it manages; no registration
procedure is required under this configuration.
When the mAFTR receives the PIMv6 Join message (*,G6), it will
extract the IPv4 multicast group address (G4). If the mAFTR is the
RP of G4 in the IPv4 multicast network, it will create a (*,G4) entry
(if such entry does not already exist) in its own IPv4 multicast
routing table. If the mAFTR is not the RP of G4, it will send the
corresponding PIMv4 Join message (*,G4) towards the RP of G4 in the
IPv4 multicast network.
When the mAFTR receives the PIMv6 Join message (S6,G6), it will
extract the IPv4 multicast group address (G4) and IPv4 source address
(S4) and send the corresponding (S4,G4) PIMv4 Join message directly
to the IPv4 source.
A branch of the multicast distribution tree is thus constructed,
comprising both an IPv4 part (from the mAFTR upstream) and an IPv6
part (from mAFTR downstream towards the mB4).
The mAFTR advertises the route of uPrefix64 with an IPv6 Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP), so as to represent the IPv4-embedded IPv6
source in the IPv6 multicast network and to allow IPv6 routers to run
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check procedure on incoming
multicast traffic. Injecting internal /96 routes is not problematic
given the recommendation in [RFC7608] that requires that forwarding
processes must be designed to process prefixes of any length up to
/128.
4.3. Multicast Data Forwarding
When the mAFTR receives an IPv4 multicast packet, it will encapsulate
the packet into an IPv6 multicast packet using the IPv4-embedded IPv6
multicast address as the destination address and an IPv4-embedded
IPv6 unicast address as the source address. The encapsulated IPv6
multicast packet will be forwarded down the IPv6 multicast
distribution tree, and the mB4 will eventually receive the packet.
The IPv6 multicast network treats the IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulated
multicast packets as native IPv6 multicast packets. The IPv6
multicast routers use the outer IPv6 header to make their forwarding
decisions.
When the mB4 receives the IPv6 multicast packet (to G6) derived by
mPrefix64, it decapsulates it and forwards the original IPv4
multicast packet towards the receivers subscribing to G4.
Note: At this point, only IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is defined;
however, other types of encapsulation could be defined in the future.
5. IPv4/IPv6 Address Mapping
5.1. Prefix Assignment
A dedicated IPv6 multicast prefix (mPrefix64) is provisioned to the
mAFTR and the mB4. The mAFTR and the mB4 use the mPrefix64 to form
an IPv6 multicast group address from an IPv4 multicast group address.
The mPrefix64 can be of two types: ASM_mPrefix64 (an mPrefix64 used
in ASM mode) or SSM_mPrefix64 (an mPrefix64 used in SSM mode). The
mPrefix64 MUST be derived from the corresponding IPv6 multicast
address space (e.g., the SSM_mPrefix64 must be in the range of the
multicast address space specified in [RFC4607]).
The IPv6 part of the multicast distribution tree can be seen as an
extension of the IPv4 part of the multicast distribution tree. The
IPv4 source address MUST be mapped to an IPv6 source address. An
IPv6 unicast prefix (uPrefix64) is provisioned to the mAFTR and the
mB4. The mAFTR and the mB4 use the uPrefix64 to form an IPv6 source
address from an IPv4 source address as specified in [RFC6052]. The
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
uPrefix-formed IPv6 source address will represent the original IPv4
source in the IPv6 multicast network. The uPrefix64 MUST be derived
from the IPv6 unicast address space.
The multicast address translation MUST follow the algorithm defined
in Section 5.2.
The mPrefix64 and uPrefix64 can be configured in the mB4 using a
variety of methods, including an out-of-band mechanism, manual
configuration, or a dedicated provisioning protocol (e.g., using
DHCPv6 [RFC8115]).
The stateless translation mechanism described in Section 5 does not
preclude use of Embedded-RP [RFC3956] [RFC7371].
5.2. Multicast Address Translation Algorithm
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast addresses are composed according to the
following algorithm:
o Concatenate the 96 bits of the mPrefix64 and the 32 bits of the
IPv4 address to obtain a 128-bit address.
The IPv4 multicast addresses are extracted from the IPv4-embedded
IPv6 multicast addresses according to the following algorithm:
o If the multicast address has a pre-configured mPrefix64, extract
the last 32 bits of the IPv6 multicast address.
An IPv4 source is represented in the IPv6 realm with its
IPv4-converted IPv6 address [RFC6052].
5.3. Textual Representation
The embedded IPv4 address in an IPv6 multicast address is included in
the last 32 bits; therefore, dotted decimal notation can be used.
5.4. Examples
Group address mapping example:
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| mPrefix64 | IPv4 address | IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| ff0x::db8:0:0/96 | 233.252.0.1 | ff0x::db8:233.252.0.1 |
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Source address mapping example when a /96 is used:
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| uPrefix64 | IPv4 address | IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
| 2001:db8::/96 | 192.0.2.33 | 2001:db8::192.0.2.33 |
+---------------------+--------------+----------------------------+
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses used in this example are derived from the
IPv4 and IPv6 blocks reserved for documentation, as per [RFC6676].
The unicast IPv4 address of the above example is derived from the
documentation address block defined in [RFC6890].
6. Multicast B4 (mB4)
6.1. IGMP-MLD Interworking Function
The IGMP-MLD Interworking function combines the IGMP/MLD Proxying
function and the address-synthesizing operations. The IGMP/MLD
Proxying function is specified in [RFC4605]. The address translation
is stateless and MUST follow the address mapping specified in
Section 5.
The mB4 performs the host portion of the MLD protocol on the upstream
interface. The composition of IPv6 membership in this context is
constructed through address-synthesizing operations and MUST
synchronize with the membership database maintained in the IGMP
domain. MLD messages are sent natively to the direct-connected IPv6
multicast routers (they will be processed by the PIM DR). The mB4
also performs the router portion of IGMP on the downstream
interface(s). Refer to [RFC4605] for more details.
+----------+ IGMP +-------+ MLD +---------+
| IPv4 |---------| mB4 |---------| PIM |
| Receiver | | | | DR |
+----------+ +-------+ +---------+
Figure 2: IGMP-MLD Interworking
If SSM is deployed, the mB4 MUST construct the IPv6 source address
(or retrieve the IPv4 source address) using the uPrefix64. The mB4
MAY create a membership database that associates the IPv4-IPv6
multicast groups with the interfaces (e.g., WLAN and Wired Ethernet)
facing IPv4 multicast receivers.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
6.2. Multicast Data Forwarding
When the mB4 receives an IPv6 multicast packet, it MUST check the
group address and the source address. If the IPv6 multicast group
prefix is mPrefix64 and the IPv6 source prefix is uPrefix64, the mB4
MUST decapsulate the IPv6 header [RFC2473]; the decapsulated IPv4
multicast packet will be forwarded through each relevant interface
following standard IPv4 multicast forwarding procedures. Otherwise,
the mB4 MUST silently drop the packet.
As an illustration, if a packet is received from source
2001:db8::192.0.2.33 and needs to be forwarded to group
ff3x:20:2001:db8::233.252.0.1, the mB4 decapsulates it into an IPv4
multicast packet using 192.0.2.33 as the IPv4 source address and
using 233.252.0.1 as the IPv4 destination multicast group. This
example assumes that the mB4 is provisioned with uPrefix64
(2001:db8::/96) and mPrefix64 (ff3x:20:2001:db8::/96).
6.3. Fragmentation
Encapsulating IPv4 multicast packets into IPv6 multicast packets that
will be forwarded by the mAFTR towards the mB4 along the IPv6
multicast distribution tree reduces the effective MTU size by the
size of an IPv6 header. In this specification, the data flow is
unidirectional from the mAFTR to the mB4. The mAFTR MUST fragment
the oversized IPv6 packet after the encapsulation into two IPv6
packets. The mB4 MUST reassemble the IPv6 packets, decapsulate the
IPv6 header, and forward the IPv4 packet to the hosts that have
subscribed to the corresponding multicast group. Further
considerations about fragmentation issues are documented in Sections
5.3 and 6.3 of [RFC6333].
6.4. Host Built-In mB4 Function
If the mB4 function is implemented in the host that is directly
connected to an IPv6-only network, the host MUST implement the
behaviors specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. The host MAY
optimize the implementation to provide an Application Programming
Interface (API) or kernel module to skip the IGMP-MLD Interworking
function. Optimization considerations are out of scope of this
specification.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
6.5. Preserve the Scope
When several mPrefix64s are available, if each enclosed IPv4-embedded
IPv6 multicast prefix has a distinct scope, the mB4 MUST select the
appropriate IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast prefix whose scope matches
the IPv4 multicast address used to synthesize an IPv4-embedded IPv6
multicast address (specific mappings are listed in Section 8 of
[RFC2365]). Mapping is achieved such that the scope of the selected
IPv6 multicast prefix does not exceed the original IPv4 multicast
scope. If the mB4 is instructed to preserve the scope but no IPv6
multicast prefix that matches the IPv4 multicast scope is found, IPv6
multicast address mapping SHOULD fail.
The mB4 MAY be configured to not preserve the scope when enforcing
the address translation algorithm.
Consider that an mB4 is configured with two mPrefix64s,
ff0e::db8:0:0/96 (global scope) and ff08::db8:0:0/96 (organization
scope). If the mB4 receives an IGMP Report message from an IPv4
receiver to subscribe to 233.252.0.1, it checks which mPrefix64 to
use in order to preserve the scope of the requested IPv4 multicast
group. In this example, given that 233.252.0.1 is intended for
global use, the mB4 creates the IPv6 multicast group (G6) address
using ff0e::db8:0:0/96 and the original IPv4 multicast group address
(233.252.0.1): ff0e::db8:233.252.0.1.
7. Multicast AFTR (mAFTR)
7.1. Routing Considerations
The mAFTR is responsible for interconnecting the IPv4 multicast
distribution tree with the corresponding IPv6 multicast distribution
tree. The mAFTR MUST use the uPrefix64 to build the IPv6 source
addresses of the multicast group address derived from mPrefix64. In
other words, the mAFTR MUST be the multicast source whose address is
derived from uPrefix64.
The mAFTR MUST advertise the route towards uPrefix64 with the IPv6
IGP. This is needed by the IPv6 multicast routers so that they
acquire the routing information to discover the source.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
7.2. Processing PIM Messages
The mAFTR MUST interwork PIM Join/Prune messages for (*,G6) and
(S6,G6) on their corresponding (*,G4) and (S4,G4). The following
text specifies the expected behavior of the mAFTR for PIM Join
messages.
+---------+
---------| mAFTR |---------
PIMv6 |uPrefix64| PIMv4
|mPrefix64|
+---------+
Figure 3: PIMv6-PIMv4 Interworking Function
The mAFTR contains two separate Tree Information Bases (TIBs): the
IPv4 Tree Information Base (TIB4) and the IPv6 Tree Information Base
(TIB6), which are bridged by one IPv4-in-IPv6 virtual interface. It
should be noted that TIB implementations may vary (e.g., some may
rely upon a single integrated TIB without any virtual interface), but
they should follow this specification for the sake of global and
functional consistency.
When an mAFTR receives a PIMv6 Join message (*,G6) with an IPv6
multicast group address (G6) that is derived from the mPrefix64, it
MUST check its IPv6 Tree Information Base (TIB6). If there is an
entry for this G6 address, it MUST check whether the interface
through which the PIMv6 Join message has been received is in the
outgoing interface (oif) list. If not, the mAFTR MUST add the
interface to the oif list. If there is no entry in the TIB6, the
mAFTR MUST create a new entry (*,G6) for the multicast group.
Whether or not the IPv4-in-IPv6 virtual interface is set as the
incoming interface of the newly created entry is up to the
implementation, but it should comply with the mAFTR's multicast data
forwarding behavior (see Section 7.4).
The mAFTR MUST extract the IPv4 multicast group address (G4) from the
IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address (G6) contained in the PIMv6 Join
message. The mAFTR MUST check its IPv4 Tree Information Base (TIB4).
If there is an entry for G4, it MUST check whether the IPv4-in-IPv6
virtual interface is in the outgoing interface list. If not, the
mAFTR MUST add the interface to the oif list. If there is no entry
for G4, the mAFTR MUST create a new (*,G4) entry in its TIB4 and
initiate the procedure for building the shared tree in the IPv4
multicast network without any additional requirement.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
If the mAFTR receives a source-specific Join message, the (S6,G6) is
processed rather than (*,G6). The procedures of processing (S6,G6)
and (*,G6) are almost the same. Differences have been detailed in
[RFC7761].
7.3. Switching from Shared Tree to Shortest Path Tree
When the mAFTR receives the first IPv4 multicast packet, it may
extract the source address (S4) from the packet and send an Explicit
PIMv4 (S4,G4) Join message directly to S4. The mAFTR switches from
the shared Rendezvous Point Tree (RPT) to the Shortest Path Tree
(SPT) for G4.
For IPv6 multicast routers to switch to the SPT, there is no new
requirement. IPv6 multicast routers may send an Explicit PIMv6 Join
to the mAFTR once the first (S6,G6) multicast packet arrives from
upstream multicast routers.
7.4. Multicast Data Forwarding
When the mAFTR receives an IPv4 multicast packet, it checks its TIB4
to find a matching entry and then forwards the packet to the
interface(s) listed in the outgoing interface list. If the IPv4-in-
IPv6 virtual interface also belongs to this list, the packet is
encapsulated with the mPrefix64-derived and uPrefix64-derived
IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses to form an IPv6 multicast packet
[RFC2473]. Then another lookup is made by the mAFTR to find a
matching entry in the TIB6. Whether or not the RPF check for the
second lookup is performed is up to the implementation and is out of
the scope of this document. The IPv6 multicast packet is then
forwarded along the IPv6 multicast distribution tree, based upon the
outgoing interface list of the matching entry in the TIB6.
As an illustration, if a packet is received from source 192.0.2.33
and needs to be forwarded to group 233.252.0.1, the mAFTR
encapsulates it into an IPv6 multicast packet using
ff3x:20:2001:db8::233.252.0.1 as the IPv6 destination multicast group
and using 2001:db8::192.0.2.33 as the IPv6 source address.
7.5. Scope
The Scope field of IPv4-in-IPv6 multicast addresses should be valued
accordingly (e.g., to "E" for global scope) in the deployment
environment. This specification does not discuss the scope value
that should be used.
The considerations in Section 6.5 are to be followed by the mAFTR.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
8. Deployment Considerations
8.1. Other Operational Modes
8.1.1. The IPv6 DR is Co-located with the mAFTR
The mAFTR can embed the MLD Querier function (as well as the PIMv6
DR) for optimization purposes. When the mB4 sends an MLD Report
message to this mAFTR, the mAFTR should process the MLD Report
message that contains the IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast group address
and then send the corresponding PIMv4 Join message (Figure 4).
+---------+
---------| mAFTR |---------
MLD |uPrefix64| PIMv4
|mPrefix64|
+---------+
Figure 4: MLD-PIMv4 Interworking Function
Discussions about the location of the mAFTR capability and related
ASM or SSM multicast design considerations are out of the scope of
this document.
8.1.2. The IPv4 DR is Co-located with the mAFTR
If the mAFTR is co-located with the IPv4 DR connected to the original
IPv4 source, it may simply use the uPrefix64 and mPrefix64 prefixes
to build the IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast packets, and the sending of
PIMv4 Join messages becomes unnecessary.
8.2. Load Balancing
For robustness and load distribution purposes, several nodes in the
network can embed the mAFTR function. In such case, the same IPv6
prefixes (i.e., mPrefix64 and uPrefix64) and algorithm to build
IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses must be configured on those nodes.
8.3. mAFTR Policy Configuration
The mAFTR may be configured with a list of IPv4 multicast groups and
sources. Only multicast flows bound to the configured addresses
should be handled by the mAFTR. Otherwise, packets are silently
dropped.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
8.4. Static vs. Dynamic PIM Triggering
To optimize the usage of network resources in current deployments,
all multicast streams are conveyed in the core network while only the
most popular ones are forwarded in the aggregation/access networks
(static mode). Less popular streams are forwarded in the access
network upon request (dynamic mode). Depending on the location of
the mAFTR in the network, two modes can be envisaged: static and
dynamic.
Static Mode: The mAFTR is configured to instantiate permanent
(S6,G6) and (*,G6) entries in its TIB6 using a pre-configured
(S4,G4) list.
Dynamic Mode: The instantiation or withdrawal of (S6,G6) or (*,G6)
entries is triggered by the receipt of PIMv6 messages.
9. Security Considerations
Besides multicast scoping considerations (see Sections 6.5 and 7.5),
this document does not introduce any new security concerns in
addition to those discussed in Section 5 of [RFC6052], Section 10 of
[RFC3810], and Section 6 of [RFC7761].
Unlike solutions that map IPv4 multicast flows to IPv6 unicast flows,
this document does not exacerbate Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks.
An mB4 SHOULD be provided with appropriate configuration information
to preserve the scope of a multicast message when mapping an IPv4
multicast address into an IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address and
vice versa.
9.1. Firewall Configuration
The CPE that embeds the mB4 function SHOULD be configured to accept
incoming MLD messages and traffic forwarded to multicast groups
subscribed to by receivers located in the customer premises.
10. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
RFC 2365, DOI 10.17487/RFC2365, July 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2365>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[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>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.
[RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous
Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address",
RFC 3956, DOI 10.17487/RFC3956, November 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3956>.
[RFC6676] Venaas, S., Parekh, R., Van de Velde, G., Chown, T., and
M. Eubanks, "Multicast Addresses for Documentation",
RFC 6676, DOI 10.17487/RFC6676, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6676>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[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>.
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
[RFC8115] Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Tsou, T., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6
Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6
Prefixes", RFC 8115, DOI 10.17487/RFC8115, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8115>.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Appendix A. Use Case: IPTV
IPTV generally includes two categories of service offerings:
o Video on Demand (VoD) that streams unicast video content to
receivers.
o Multicast live TV broadcast services.
Two types of provider are involved in the delivery of this service:
o Content Providers, who usually own the content that is multicast
to receivers. Content providers may contractually define an
agreement with network providers to deliver content to receivers.
o Network Providers, who provide network connectivity services
(e.g., network providers are responsible for carrying multicast
flows from head-ends to receivers).
Note that some contract agreements prevent a network provider from
altering the content as sent by the content provider for various
reasons. Depending on these contract agreements, multicast streams
should be delivered unaltered to the requesting users.
Most current IPTV content is likely to remain IPv4-formatted and out
of the control of network providers. Additionally, there are
numerous legacy receivers (e.g., IPv4-only Set-Top Boxes (STBs)) that
can't be upgraded or easily replaced to support IPv6. As a
consequence, IPv4 service continuity must be guaranteed during the
transition period, including the delivery of multicast services such
as Live TV Broadcasting to users.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Appendix B. Older Versions of Group Membership Management Protocols
Given the multiple versions of group membership management protocols,
mismatch issues may arise at the mB4 (refer to Section 6.1).
If IGMPv2 operates on the IPv4 receivers while MLDv2 operates on the
MLD Querier, or if IGMPv3 operates on the IPv4 receivers while MLDv1
operates on the MLD Querier, a version mismatch issue will be
encountered. To solve this problem, the mB4 should perform the
router portion of IGMP, which is similar to the corresponding MLD
version (IGMPv2 for MLDv1 or IGMPv3 for MLDv2) operating in the IPv6
domain. Then, the protocol interaction approach specified in
Section 7 of [RFC3376] can be applied to exchange signaling messages
with the IPv4 receivers on which the different version of IGMP is
operating.
Note that the support of IPv4 SSM requires MLDv2 to be enabled in the
IPv6 network.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dan Wing for his guidance in the
early discussions that initiated this work. We also thank Peng Sun,
Jie Hu, Qiong Sun, Lizhong Jin, Alain Durand, Dean Cheng, Behcet
Sarikaya, Tina Tsou, Rajiv Asati, Xiaohong Deng, and Stig Venaas for
their valuable comments.
Many thanks to Ian Farrer for the review.
Thanks to Zhen Cao, Tim Chown, Francis Dupont, Jouni Korhonen, and
Stig Venaas for the directorates review.
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8114 IPv4 over IPv6 Multicast March 2017
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Chao Qin
Cisco
Shanghai
China
Email: jacni@jacni.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast
United States of America
Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Qian Wang
China Telecom
China
Phone: +86 10 58502462
Email: 13301168516@189.cn
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]