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

Versions: (draft-farinacci-pim-pop-count) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6807

Network Working Group                                     Dino Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                             Greg Shepherd
Intended status: Experimental                                Stig Venaas
Expires: April 7, 2013                                     Cisco Systems
                                                               Yiqun Cai
                                                               Microsoft
                                                         October 4, 2012


                   Population Count Extensions to PIM
                    draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt

Abstract

   This specification defines a method for providing multicast
   distribution-tree accounting data.  Simple extensions to the PIM
   protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable
   fashion.

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 April 7, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


   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 Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Pop-Count-Supported Hello Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  New Pop-Count Join Attribute Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.1.1.  Link Speed Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Example message layouts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  How to use Pop-Count Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Implementation Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Caveats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20



























Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a mechanism to convey accounting information
   using the PIM protocol [RFC4601] [RFC5015].  Putting the mechanism in
   PIM allows efficient distribution and maintenance of such accounting
   information.  Previous mechanisms require data to be correlated from
   multiple router sources.

   This mechanism allows a single router to be queried to obtain
   accounting and statistic information for a multicast distribution
   tree as a whole or any distribution sub-tree downstream from a
   queried router.  The amount of information is fixed and does not
   increase as multicast membership, tree diameter, or branching
   increase.

   The sort of accounting data this specification provides, on a per
   multicast route basis, are:

   1.  The number of branches in a distribution tree.

   2.  The membership type of the distribution tree, that is Source-
       Specific Multicast (SSM) or Any-Source Multicast (ASM).

   3.  Routing domain and time zone boundary information.

   4.  On-tree node and tree diameter counters.

   5.  Effective MTU and bandwidth.

   This document defines a new PIM Join Attribute type [RFC5384] to the
   Join/Prune message as well as a new Hello option.  The mechanism is
   applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 multicast.

   This is a new extension to PIM, and it is not completely understood
   what impact collecting information using PIM would have on the
   operation of PIM.  This is an entirely new concept.  Many PIM
   features (including the core protocols) were first introduced as
   Experimental RFCs, and it seems appropriate to advance this work as
   Experimental.  Reports of implementation and deployment across whole
   distribution trees or within sub-trees (see Section 6) will enable an
   assessment of the desirability and stability of this specification.
   The PIM working group will then consider whether to move this work to
   the Standards Track.

   This document does not specify how an administrator or user can
   access this information.  It is expected that an implementation may
   have a command line interface or other ways of requesting and
   displaying this information.  As this is currently an Experimental



Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


   document, defining a MIB module has not been considered.  If the PIM
   working group finds that this should move on to Standards Track, a
   MIB module should be considered.

1.1.  Requirements Notation

   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].

1.2.  Terminology

   This section defines the terms used in this document.

   Multicast Route:   A (S,G) or (*,G) entry regardless if the route is
      in ASM, SSM, or Bidir mode of operation.

   Stub Link:   A link with members joined to the group via IGMP or
      Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD)

   Transit Link:   A link put in the oif-list (outgoing interface list)
      for a multicast route because it was joined by PIM routers.

   Note that a link can be both a Stub Link and a Transit Link at the
   same time.


























Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


2.  Pop-Count-Supported Hello Option

   A PIM router indicates that it supports the mechanism specified in
   this document by including the Pop-Count-Supported Hello option in
   its PIM Hello message.  Note that it also needs to include the Join-
   Attribute Hello option as specified in [RFC5384].  The format of the
   Pop-Count-Supported Hello option is defined to be:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          OptionType           |         OptionLength          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   OptionType = TBD1, OptionLength = 0.  Note that there is no option
   value included.  In order to allow future updates of this
   specification that may include an option value, implementations of
   this document MUST accept and process this option also if the length
   is non-zero.  Implementations of this specification MUST accept and
   process the option ignoring any option value that may be included.






























Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


3.  New Pop-Count Join Attribute Format

   When a PIM router supports this mechanism and has determined from a
   received Hello, that the neighbor supports this mechanism, and also
   that all the neighbors on the interface support the use of join
   attributes, it will send Join/Prune messages that MAY include a Pop-
   Count Join Attribute.  The mechanism to process a PIM Join Attribute
   is described in [RFC5384].  The format of the new attribute is
   specified in the following.


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |F|E| Attr Type |    Length     |        Effective MTU          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Flags             |        Options Bitmap         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            Options                            |
      .                               .                               .
      .                               .                               .
      .                               .                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The above format is used only for entries in the join-list section of
   the Join/Prune message.

   F bit:   0 Non-Transitive Attribute.

   E bit:   As specified by [RFC5384].

   Attr Type:   TBD2.

   Length:   The minimum length is 6.

   Effective MTU:   This contains the minimum MTU for any link in the
      oif-list.  The sender of Join/Prune message takes the minimum
      value for the MTU (in bytes) from each link in the oif-list.  If
      this value is less than the value stored for the multicast route
      (the one received from downstream joiners) then the value should
      be reset and sent in Join/Prune message.  Otherwise, the value
      should remain unchanged.

      This provides one to obtain the MTU supported by multicast
      distribution tree when examined at the first-hop router(s) or for
      sub-tree for any router on the distribution tree.





Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


   Flags:   The flags field has the following format:


           0                   1
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |  Unalloc/Reserved   |P|a|t|A|S|
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



      Unallocated/Reserved Flags:   The flags which are currently not
         defined.  If a new flag is defined and used by a new
         implementation, an old implementation should preserve the bit
         settings.  This means that a router MUST preserve the settings
         of all Unallocated/Reserved Flags in PIM Join messages received
         from downstream routers in any PIM Join sent upstream.

      S flag:   If an IGMPv3 or MLDv2 report with an INCLUDE Mode group
         record was received on any oif-list entry or the bit was set
         from any PIM Join message.  This bit should only be cleared
         when the above becomes untrue.

      A flag:   If an IGMPv3 or MLDv2 report with an EXCLUDE Mode group
         record, or an IGMPv1, IGMPv2, or MLDv1 report, was received on
         any oif-list entry or the bit was set from any PIM Join
         message.  This bit should only be cleared when the above
         becomes untrue.

         A combination of settings for these bits indicate:


           A-flag   S-flag   Description
           ------   ------   --------------------------------------
             0        0      There are no members for the group
                             ('Stub Oif-List Count' is 0)
             0        1      All group members are using SSM
             1        0      All group members are using ASM
             1        1      A mixture of SSM and ASM group members

      t flag:   If there are any tunnels on the distribution tree.  If a
         tunnel is in the oif-list, a router should set this bit in its
         Join/Prune messages.  Otherwise, it propagates the bit setting
         from downstream joiners.







Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


      a flag:   If there are any auto-tunnels on the distribution tree.
         If an auto-tunnel is in the oif-list, a router should set this
         bit in its Join/Prune messages.  Otherwise, it propagates the
         bit setting from downstream joiners.  An example of an auto-
         tunnel is an tunnel setup by the AMT
         [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast] protocol.

      P flag:   This flag is set by a router if all downstream routers
         support this specification.  That is, they are all PIM pop-
         count capable.  If a downstream router does not support this
         specification it MUST be cleared.  This allows one to tell if
         the entire sub-tree is completely accounting capable.

   Options Bitmap:   This is a bitmap that shows which options are
      present.  The format of the bitmap is as follows:


            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |T|s|m|M|d|n|D|z| Unalloc/Rsrvd |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Each one of the bits T, s, m, M, d, n, D and z is associated with
      one option, where the option is included if and only if the
      respective bit is set.  Included options MUST be in the same order
      as these bits are listed.  The bits denote the following options:


            bit     Option
           -----   ------------------------
             T      Transit Oif-List Count
             s      Stub Oif-List Count
             m      Minimum Speed Link
             M      Maximum Speed Link
             d      Domain Count
             n      Node Count
             D      Diameter Count
             z      TZ Count

      See Section 3.1 for details on the different options.  The
      unallocated bits are reserved.  Any unknown bits MUST be set to 0
      when a message is sent, and treated as 0 (ignored) when received.
      This means that unknown options which are denoted by unknown bits
      are ignored.






Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


      By using this bitmap we can specify at most 16 options.  If there
      becomes a need for more than 16 options, one can define a new
      option that contains a bitmap, which can then be used to specify
      which further options are present.  The last bit in the current
      bitmap could be used for that option.  The exact definition of
      this is however left for future documents.

   Options:   This field contains options.  Which options are present
      are determined by the flag bits.  As new flags and options may be
      defined in the future, any unknown/reserved flags MUST be ignored,
      and any additional trailing options MUST be ignored.  See
      Section 3.1 for details on the options defined in this document.

3.1.  Options

   There are several options defined in this document.  For each option,
   there is also a related flag that shows whether the option is
   present.  See the Options Bitmap above for a list of the options and
   their respective bits.  Each option has a fixed size.  Note that
   there is no alignment requirements for the options, so an
   implementation cannot assume they are aligned.

   Transit Oif-List Count:   This is filled in by a router sending a
      Join/Prune message indicating the number of transit links on the
      multicast distribution tree.  The value is the number of oifs
      (outgoing interfaces) for the multicast route that have been
      joined by PIM plus the sum of the values advertised by each of the
      downstream PIM routers that have joined on this oif.  Length 4
      octets.

   Stub Oif-List Count:   This is filled in by a router sending a Join/
      Prune message indicating the number of stub links (links where
      there are host members) on the multicast distribution tree.  The
      value is the number of of oifs for the multicast route that have
      been joined by IGMP or MLD plus the sum of the values advertised
      by each of the downstream PIM routers that have joined on this
      oif.  Length 4 octets.

   Minimum Speed Link:   This contains the minimum bandwidth rate for
      any link in the oif-list and is encoded as specified in
      Section 3.1.1.  The sender of Join/Prune message takes the minimum
      value for each link in the oif-list for the multicast route.  If
      this value is less than the value stored for the multicast route
      (the smallest value received from downstream joiners) then the
      value should be reset and sent in Join/Prune message.  Otherwise,
      the value should remain unchanged.  This together with the Maximum
      Speed Link option provides a way to obtain the lowest and highest
      speed link for the multicast distribution tree.  Length 2 octets.



Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


   Maximum Speed Link:   This contains the maximum bandwidth rate for
      any link in the oif-list and is encoded as specified in
      Section 3.1.1.  The sender of Join/Prune message takes the maximum
      value for each link in the oif-list for the multicast route.  If
      this value is greater than the value stored for the multicast
      route (the largest value received from downstream joiners) then
      the value should be reset and sent in Join/Prune message.
      Otherwise, the value should remain unchanged.  This together with
      the Minimum Speed Link option provides a way to obtain the lowest
      and highest speed link for the multicast distribution tree.
      Length 2 octets.

   Domain Count:   This indicates the number of routing domains the
      distribution tree traverses.  A router should increment this value
      if it is sending a Join/Prune message over a link which traverses
      a domain boundary.  For this to work, an implementation needs a
      way of knowing that a neighbor or an interface is in a different
      domain.  There is no standard way of doing this.  Length 1 octet.

   Node Count:   This indicates the number of routers on the
      distribution tree.  Each router will sum up all the Node Counts
      from all joiners on all oifs and increment by 1 before including
      this value in the Join/Prune message.  Length 1 octet.

   Diameter Count:   This indicates the longest length of any given
      branch of the tree in router hops.  Each router that sends a Join
      increments the max value received by all downstream joiners by 1.
      Length 1 octet.

   TZ Count:   This indicates the number of timezones the distribution
      tree traverses.  A router should increment this value if it is
      sending a Join/Prune message over a link which traverses a time
      zone.  This can be a configured link attribute or use other means
      to determine the timezone is acceptable.  Length 1 octet.

3.1.1.  Link Speed Encoding

   The speed is encoded using 2 octets as follows:


            0                   1
            0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           | Exponent  |    Significand    |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Using this format, the speed of the link is Significand * 10 ^
   Exponent kbps.  This allows specifying link speeds with up to 3



Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


   decimal digits precision and speeds from 1 kbps to 10 ^ 67 kbps.  A
   computed speed of 0 kbps means the link speed is < 1 kbps.

   Here are some examples how this is used:


            Link Speed     Exponent     Significand
           ------------   ----------   -------------
            500 kbps       0            500
            500 kbps       2              5
            155 Mbps       3            155
            40 Gpbs        6             40
            100 Gpbs       6            100
            100 Gpbs       8              1

3.2.  Example message layouts

   We will here give a few examples to illustrate the use of flags and
   options.

   A minimum size message has no option flags set, and looks like this:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |F|E| Attr Type |  Length = 6   |        Effective MTU          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Unalloc/Reserved   |P|a|t|A|S|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Unalloc/Rsrvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   A message containing all the options defined in this document would
   look like this:


















Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |F|E| Attr Type |  Length = 18  |        Effective MTU          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Unalloc/Reserved   |P|a|t|A|S|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1| Unalloc/Rsrvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    Transit Oif-List Count                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Stub Oif-List Count                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Minimum Speed Link       |      Maximum Speed Link       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Domain Count |  Node Count   | Diameter Count|    TZ Count   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   A message containing only Stub Oif-List Count and Node Count would
   look like this:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |F|E| Attr Type |  Length = 9   |        Effective MTU          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Unalloc/Reserved   |P|a|t|A|S|0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0| Unalloc/Rsrvd |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Stub Oif-List Count                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Node count   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




















Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


4.  How to use Pop-Count Encoding

   A router supporting this mechanism MUST, unless administratively
   disabled, include the PIM Join Attribute option in its PIM Hellos.
   See [RFC5384] and [HELLO] for details.

   It is RECOMMENDED that implementations allow for administrative
   control whether to make use of this mechanism.  Implementations MAY
   also allow further control of what information to store and send
   upstream.

   It is very important to note that any changes to the values
   maintained by this mechanism MUST NOT trigger a new Join/Prune
   message.  Due to the periodic nature of PIM, the values can be
   accurately obtained at 1 minute intervals (or whatever Join/Prune
   interval used).

   When a router removes a link from an oif-list, it need to be able to
   reevaluate the values that it will advertise upstream.  This happens
   when an oif-list entry is timed out or a Prune is received.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Join Attribute defined in this document be
   used only for entries in the join-list part of the Join/Prune
   message.  If the attribute is used in the prune-list, an
   implementation MUST ignore it and process the Prune as if the
   attribute was not present.

   It is also RECOMMENDED that join suppression be disabled on a LAN
   when Pop-Count is used.

   It is RECOMMENDED that when triggered Join/Prune messages are sent by
   a downstream router, that the accounting information not be included
   in the message.  This way when convergence is important, avoiding the
   processing time to build an accounting record in a downstream router
   and processing time to parse the message in the upstream router will
   help reduce convergence time.  An upstream router SHOULD NOT
   interpret a Join/Prune message received with no accounting data to
   mean clearing or resetting what accounting data it has cached.













Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


5.  Implementation Approaches

   This section offers some non-normative suggestions for how pop-count
   may be be implemented.

   An implementation can decide how the accounting attributes are
   maintained.  The values can be stored as part of the multicast route
   data structure by combining the local information it has with the
   joined information on a per oif basis.  So when it is time to send a
   Join/Prune message, the values stored in the multicast route can be
   copied to the message.

   Or, an implementation could store the accounting values per oif and
   when a Join/Prune message is sent, it can combine the oifs with its
   local information.  Then the combined information can be copied to
   the message.

   When a downstream joiner stops joining, accounting values cached must
   be evaluated.  There are two approaches which can be taken.  One is
   to keep values learned from each joiner so when the joiner goes away
   the count/max/min values are known and the combined value can be
   adjusted.  The other approach is to set the value to 0 for the oif,
   and then start accumulating new values as subsequent Joins are
   received.

   The same issue arises when an oif is removed from the oif-list.
   Keeping per-oif values allows you to adjust the per-route values when
   an oif goes away.  Or, alternatively, a delay for reporting the new
   set a values from the route can occur while all oif values are zeroed
   (where accumulation of new values from subsequent Joins cause re-
   population of values and a new max/min/count can be reevaluated for
   the route).



















Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


6.  Caveats

   This specification requires each router on a multicast distribution
   tree to support this specification or else the accounting attributes
   for the tree will not be known.

   However, if there are a contiguous set of routers downstream in the
   distribution tree, they can maintain accounting information for the
   sub-tree.

   If there are a set of contiguous routers supporting this
   specification upstream on the multicast distribution tree, accounting
   information will be available but it will not represent an accurate
   assessment of the entire tree.  Also, it will not be clear for how
   much of the distribution tree the accounting information covers.




































Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


7.  IANA Considerations

   A new PIM Hello Option type, 29, has been assigned temporarily.  The
   string TBD1 needs to be replaced with the permanently assigned value.
   See [HELLO] for details.  Although the length is specified as 0 in
   this specifications, non-zero length is allowed, so IANA should list
   the length as being variable.

   A new PIM Join Attribute type needs to be assigned.  The string TBD2
   needs to be replaced with the assigned value.









































Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


8.  Security Considerations

   The use of this specification requires some additional processing of
   PIM Join/Prune messages.  However, the additional amount of
   processing is fairly limited, so this is not believed to be a
   significant concern.

   The use of this mechanism includes information like the number of
   receivers.  This information is assumed to not be of sensitive
   nature.  If an operator has concerns about revealing this information
   to upstream routers, or other routers/hosts that may potentially
   inspect this information, there should be a way to disable the
   mechanism, or alternatively more detailed control of what information
   to include.





































Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank John Zwiebel, Amit Jain, and Clayton
   Wagar for their review comments on the initial versions of this
   document.  Adrian Farrel did a detailed review of the document and
   proposed textual changes that have been incorporated.  Further review
   and comments were provided by Thomas Morin and Zhaohui (Jeffrey)
   Zhang.











































Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

   [RFC5384]  Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol
              Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format",
              RFC 5384, November 2008.

10.2.  Informative References

   [HELLO]    IANA, "PIM-Hello Options",
               <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters>.

   [I-D.ietf-mboned-auto-multicast]
              Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling",
              draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14 (work in progress),
              June 2012.























Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     Population Count Extensions to PIM       October 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: dino@cisco.com


   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: gjshep@gmail.com


   Stig Venaas
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: stig@cisco.com


   Yiqun Cai
   Microsoft
   1065 La Avenida
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: yiqunc@microsoft.com















Dino Farinacci, et al.    Expires April 7, 2013                [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/