[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5384

PIM WG                                                          A. Boers
Internet-Draft                                              IJ. Wijnands
Intended status: Informational                                  E. Rosen
Expires: November 21, 2007                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            May 20, 2007


                 Format for using TLVs in PIM messages
                   draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-03

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 21, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document describes a generic TLV attribute encoding format to be
   added to PIM join messages.








Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Use of the Attribute Field in Join Messages . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Attribute join  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  Transitive attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.3.  Attribute Hello Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.4.  Conflicting attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.5.  Attribute Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.6.  Multiple attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.7.  Applicability of the attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.8.  PIM attribute packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.8.1.  PIM Join packet format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.8.2.  PIM Attribute Hello option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9




























Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


1.  Conventions used in this document

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and
   indicate requirement levels for compliant PIM-SM implementations.


2.  Introduction

   It is sometimes convenient to add additional information to PIM join
   messages.  The generic PIM encoding format is not always optimal to
   do this.  This document defines a new field in the PIM Join message
   that allows it to use TLVs, hereby called the attribute field.  The
   content and purpose of this attribute field is outside the scope of
   this document, only the generic encoding format is described here.


3.  Use of the Attribute Field in Join Messages

3.1.  Attribute join

   Attribute fields are defined similar to the PIM source encoding type
   as defined in [RFC4601].  A source address without any additional
   TLV's should be processed identically to a source address in the
   default source encoding.

   Multiple TLV's from the same or different type are permitted in a
   single source address in any order.

3.2.  Transitive attributes

   It may be desired to have routers that understand the generic
   attribute format, forward the attributes regardless of whether they
   understand the TLV's encoded in the attribute not.  For this the
   first bit in the Type field is reserved.  If this bit is set then the
   router MUST forward the TLV upstream in case the router does not
   understand that type.  If this bit is not set the router MUST NOT
   forward the TLV upstream in the case the router does not understand
   that type.

3.3.  Attribute Hello Option

   A new PIM source type has been defined to include the Attribute
   field.  This source type is included in a normal PIM Join.  Each
   router on a connected network needs to be able to understand and
   parse the Join message.  Therefore we include a new PIM hello option
   to advertise our capability to parse and process the new source type.



Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


   We can only send a PIM Join which includes an attribute if ALL
   routers on the network support the new option.  (Even a router which
   is not the upstream neighbor must be able parse to the packet in
   order to do Join suppression or overriding.)  Option value TBD.

   Having the attribute hello option does not guarantee that all
   neighbors understand all possible individual attributes.  As there's
   no immediate way to act on a neighbor's incapability to process
   certain attribute types, it is not desired to have a hello option for
   each possible attribute type.

3.4.  Conflicting attributes

   It's possible that a router receives conflicting attribute
   information from different downstream routers.  Conflicts only occur
   with attributes of the same type.  If two different attributes of two
   different types are received they should both be processed and
   forwarded.

       ( Edge A1 )            ( Edge B1 )---- [R1]
      /           \          /
     /             \        /
   [S]              ( Core )
     \             /        \
      \           /          \
       ( Edge A2 )            ( Edge B2 )---- [R2]


        Figure 2

   An example join attribute in this case is an exit router.  There are
   2 receivers for the same group connected to Edge B1 and B2.  Suppose
   that edge router B1 prefers A1 as the exit point and B2 prefers A2 as
   exit point to reach the source S. If both Edge B1 and B2 send a Join
   including an attribute to prefer their exit router in the network and
   they cross the same core router, the core router will get conflicting
   attribute information for the source.  If this happens we use the
   Attribute from the PIM adjacency with the numerically smallest IP
   address.  In the case of IPv6, the link local address will be used.
   When two neighbors have the same IP address, either for IPv4 or IPv6,
   the interface index must be used as a tie breaker.  The attributes
   from other sending routers may be kept around in case the best
   attribute gets pruned or expires, we are able to immediately use the
   second best attribute and converge quickly without waiting for the
   next periodic update.  If a TLV has its own definition for conflict
   resolution it is preferred over the conflict resolution above.





Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


3.5.  Attribute Convergence

   An attribute is included in a PIM Join message together with the
   source information.  If the attribute for this source is changed, we
   trigger a new PIM Join message to the upstream router.  This causes
   the new attribute to be propagated.  This new attribute implicitly
   removes the old attribute upstream.  If processing the new attribute
   results in a change in the distribution tree, a PIM Prune message may
   be sent.  This PIM Prune does not need to carry any attribute, the
   sender of the prune and the source and group information is enough to
   identify the entry.  The attribute information is removed immediately
   and possibly a new attribute is chosen from the database if
   available.

3.6.  Multiple attributes

   A PIM Join can contain multiple attributes.  The attributes are
   encoded as TLVs associated with a new PIM source type in the PIM
   message.  When a PIM Join with multiple attributes is received, each
   type is processed separately.  For each type, the first attribute of
   that type is processed, and the action taken depends upon the type.
   This may or may not result in the processing of the next attribute.
   Attributes that the router understands but are not processed MUST be
   passed upstream unchanged.

3.7.  Applicability of the attributes

   PIM Joins with attributes can be applied to both shared-trees rooted
   at a Rendezvous Point (RP) and shortest-path trees as described in
   [RFC4601].

3.8.  PIM attribute packet format

3.8.1.  PIM Join packet format

   There is no space in the default PIM source encoding to include a
   attribute field.  Therefore we introduce a new source encoding type.
   The attributes are formatted as TLV's.  The new Encoded source
   address looks like this:












Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Addr Family   | Encoding Type | Rsrvd   |S|W|R|  Mask Len     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Source Address (Encoded-Source format)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |F|S|  Type     | Length        | Value
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
   |F|S|  Type     | Length        | Value
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
           .                    .                     .
           .                    .                     .

   F bit, Forward Unknown TLV.  If this bit is set the TLV is forwarded
   regardless if the router understands the Type.

   S bit, Bottom of Stack.  If this bit is set then this is the last TLV
   in the stack.

   Type field of the TLV is 6 bits.

   Length field of the TLV is 1 byte.

   The other fields are the same as described in the RFC 4601.
   [RFC4601].

   The source TLV encoding type: TBD.

3.8.2.  PIM Attribute Hello option

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      OptionType = TBD          |      OptionLength = 0         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option type: TBD.


4.  IANA Considerations

   A new IANA registry is needed for PIM Join Attributes Types.
   Additionally, a new PIM Hello value needs to be obtained from the PIM
   Hello Option values 17 through 65000 assigned by the IANA.







Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   Security of the join attribute is only guaranteed by the security of
   the PIM packet, so the security considerations for PIM join packets
   as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601] apply here.


6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas, James Lingard, Bharat
   Joshi, Marshall Eubanks, Pekka Savola and Tom Pusateri for their
   input.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

7.2.  Informative References


Authors' Addresses

   Arjen Boers
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Avda. Diagonal, 682
   Barcelona  08034
   Spain

   Email: aboers@cisco.com


   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: ice@cisco.com








Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


   Eric Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, Ma  01719

   Email: erosen@cisco.com













































Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      The PIM TLV join attribute format           May 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

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

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

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


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Boers, et al.           Expires November 21, 2007               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/