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

Versions: 00 01 02

Internet Draft                                            Rick Boivie
Expires: August 2001                                    Nancy Feldman
                                           IBM Watson Research Center

                                                        February 2001



                        Small Group Multicast
                      <draft-boivie-sgm-02.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.


Abstract

   Multicast has become increasingly important with the emergence of
   network-based applications such as IP telephony and video
   conferencing. The Internet community has done a significant amount
   of work on IP multicast over the last decade [1-10] and as a
   result, there are a number of multicast applications that are used
   today on the Mbone, the multicast-capable virtual network that is
   layered on top of (portions of) the Internet [10]. However, while
   today's multicast schemes are scaleable in the sense that they can
   support very large multicast groups, there are scalability issues
   when a network needs to support a very large number of distinct
   multicast groups. This document describes a new scheme for
   multicast that complements the existing schemes. Whereas the
   existing schemes can support a limited number of very large
   multicast groups, the scheme described here can support a very



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 1]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   large number of small multicast groups.


1.   Introduction

   Multicast, the ability to efficiently send data to a group of
   destinations, is becoming increasingly important for applications
   such as IP telephony, video-conferencing, video distribution,
   collaborative work environments, multiparty networked games, etc.

   There seem to be two kinds of multicasts that are important: a
   broadcast-like multicast that sends data to a very large number of
   destinations and a "narrowcast" multicast that sends data to a
   fairly small group. An example of the first is the audio & video
   multicasting of a working group session from an IETF meeting to
   sites all around the world. An example of the second is a
   videoconference involving 3 or 4 parties. For reasons described
   below, it seems prudent to use different mechanisms for these two
   cases. As the reliable multicast transport group has stated: "it
   is believed that a 'one size fits all' protocol will be unable to
   meet the requirements of all applications" [11].

1.1. Current Multicast Schemes

   Current multicast schemes [1,3,4,6,8] were designed to handle very
   large multicast groups. These work well if one is trying to
   distribute broadcast-like channels all around the world but they
   have scalability problems when there is a very large number of
   groups.

   In some of these schemes, the nodes in the network build a
   multicast distribution tree for each <source, multicast group>
   pair and they disseminate this multicast routing information to
   places where it isn't necessarily needed, which leads to scaling
   problems if there are a large number of multicast groups.

   Some other schemes try to limit the amount of multicast routing
   information that needs to be disseminated, processed and stored
   throughout the network. These schemes use a "shared distribution
   tree" that is shared by all the members of a multicast group and
   they try to limit the distribution of multicast routing
   information to just those nodes that "really need it". But these
   schemes also have problems. Because of the shared tree, they use
   less than optimal paths in routing packets to their destinations
   and they tend to concentrate traffic in small portions of a
   network. They also require that all of the routers in a multicast
   tree "signal", process and store multicast routing information.
   And they require that multicast routing information for the
   various multicast groups be communicated across inter-AS
   administrative boundaries. These requirements cause scalability



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 2]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   problems and increase administrative complexity if there are a
   large number of multicast groups.


2.   Small Group Multicast (SGM)

2.1. Overview

   The "Small Group Multicast" (SGM) scheme described here attempts
   to eliminate these problems for the case of small groups. In SGM,
   the source node keeps track of the destinations that it wants to
   send packets to, and creates packet headers that contain the list
   of destination addresses. SGM-capable routers receive these
   packets, parse the SGM headers and use the ordinary unicast route
   table to determine how to route the packet to each destination.
   This eliminates the need for class D addresses, as well as the
   need for network routers to store state for the various multicast
   groups. This makes SGM very scaleable in terms of the number of
   groups that can be supported since the nodes in the network do not
   need to disseminate or store any multicast routing information for
   these groups. And since it doesn't use any multicast routing
   protocol, there are no inter-AS multicast routing "peering" issues
   to contend with. SGM has the additional benefit that packets
   always take the "right" path as determined by the ordinary unicast
   route protocols. Unlike the shared tree schemes, SGM minimizes
   network latency and maximizes network "efficiency". This removes
   some important obstacles that have, to this point, prevented the
   widespread acceptance and adoption of multicast. Thus, SGM makes
   multicast practical for very large numbers of small groups, which
   as suggested above is a very important case. Note that while SGM
   is not suitable for large multicast groups, such as the broadcast
   of an IETF meeting, it does provide an important complement to
   existing multicast schemes in that it can support very large
   numbers of small groups.

   SGM takes advantage of one of the fundamental tenets of the
   Internet "philosophy", namely that one should move complexity to
   the edges of the network and keep the middle of the network
   simple. This is the principle that guided the design of IP and TCP
   and it's the principle that has made the incredible growth of the
   Internet possible. For example, one reason that the Internet has
   been able to scale so well is that the routers in the core of the
   network deal with large CIDR blocks as opposed to individual hosts
   or individual "connections". The routers in the core don't need to
   keep track of the individual TCP connections that are passing
   through them. Similarly, the IETF's diffserv effort is based on
   the idea that the routers shouldn't have to keep track of a large
   number of individual RSVP flows that might be passing through
   them. It's the authors' belief that the routers in the core
   shouldn't have to keep track of a large number of individual



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 3]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   multicast flows either.

2.2. Mechanism

   In Small Group Multicast, the source node keeps track of the
   destinations that it wants to send packets to. The source encodes
   a list of unicast destinations in an SGM header that follows the
   L3 header, and then sends the packet to a router. Each router
   along the way parses the SGM header, partitions the destinations
   based on each destination's next hop, and forwards an appropriate
   SGM packet to each of the next hops. Each "final" hop removes the
   SGM encoding, and forwards the data as a standard unicast packet
   to its destination.

   For example, suppose that A is trying to get packets distributed
   to B, C & D in figure 1 below:


                                R4 ---- B
                               /
                              /
    A ----- R1 ---- R2 ---- R3                      R8 ---- C
                              \                    /
                               \                  /
                                R5 ---- R6 ---- R7
                                                 \
                                                  \
                                                    R9 ---- D
                              Figure 1

   This is accomplished as follows: A sends an SGM packet to its
   default router, R1, that includes the list of destinations for the
   packet. Ignoring some details, the packet that A sends to R1 might
   look like this:

   Level 3 header:
     < dest = R1 >
     < src = A >
     < protocol = small group multicast >  (new protocol type)

   Level "3.5" header:
     < dest = B C D >
     < src = A >

   followed by the payload that A wants delivered to B, C and D.

   (Note that the SGM layer is said to be at "level 3.5" since it's
   between IP and UDP in the IP protocol stack. SGM is carried within
   an IP datagram and it carries a UDP payload.)




Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 4]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   When R1 receives this packet, it needs to properly process the SGM
   header. The processing that a router does on receiving one of
   these small group multicast packets is as follows:

     o Perform a route table lookup to determine the next hop for each
       of the destinations listed in the packet.
     o Partition the set of destinations based on their next hops.
     o Replicate the packet so that there's one copy of the packet for
       each of the next hops found in the previous steps.
     o Modify the list of destinations in each of the copies so that
       the list in the copy for a given next hop includes just the
       destinations that ought to be routed through that next hop.
     o Send the modified copies of the packet on to the next hops.
     o Optimization: If there is only one destination for a particular
       SGM next hop, send the packet as a standard unicast packet to the
       destination, as there is no multicast gain by formatting it as
       an SGM packet.

   So, in the example above, R1 will send a single packet on to R2
   with a destination list of < B C D > and R2 will send a single
   packet to R3 with the same destination list.

   When R3 receives the packet, it will, by the algorithm above, send
   one copy of the packet to destination R5 with an SGM list of < C D
   >, and one ordinary unicast packet addressed to < B >. R4 will
   receive a standard unicast packet and forward it on to < B >. R5
   will forward the SGM packet that it receives on to R6 which will
   pass it on to R7. When the packet reaches R7, R7 will transmit
   ordinary unicast packets addressed to < C > and < D >
   respectively. R8 and R9 will receive standard unicast packets, and
   forward the packets on to < C > and < D > respectively.

   It's important that the SGM packet that is sent to a given next
   hop only includes destinations for which that next hop is the next
   hop listed in the route table. If the list of destinations in the
   packet sent to R4, for example, had also included C and D, R4
   would send extra packets on to those nodes on a less than optimum
   path. This could waste a lot of bandwidth if one is, for example,
   multicasting a videoconference. And this could cause serious
   problems when route loops occur since a multicast packet could
   "spray" large numbers of packets in a number of different
   directions as it travels around a loop. Since the SGM packet that
   is sent to a given next hop only includes the destinations that
   are supposed to be reached through that next hop, these problems
   are eliminated.

   Note that when routing topology changes, the routing for a
   multicast flow will automatically adapt to the new topology since
   the path a multicast packet takes to a given destination always
   follows the ordinary, unicast routing for that destination.



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 5]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001




   Note also that since the SGM header is added to the data portion
   of the packet, if the sender wishes to avoid IP fragmentation, it
   must take the size of the SGM header into account.

   See the Appendix for the SGM encoding formats.


3.   Interoperability with Today's Routers

   In the description above all of the routers in the network were
   "SGM-capable". But the scheme can also be used in an environment
   that includes routers that have no knowledge of SGM. This is
   important since it allows SGM to be used without upgrading all the
   routers in a network. There are two methods that can be used: the
   first uses SGM "tunnels"; the second, icmp unreachable messages.

3.1. SGM Tunnels

   One way to deploy SGM in a network that has routers that have no
   knowledge of SGM is to setup "tunnels" between SGM peers. This
   enables the creation of a virtual network layered on top of an
   existing network. The SGM routers exchange and maintain SGM
   routing information via any standard unicast routing protocol
   (e.g. RIP, OSPF, ISIS). The SGM routing table that is created is
   simply a standard unicast routing table that contains the
   destinations that have SGM connectivity, along with their
   corresponding SGM next hops. In this way, packets may be forwarded
   hop-by-hop to other SGM routers, or may be "tunneled" through non-
   SGM routers in the network.

   For example, suppose that A is trying to get packets distributed
   to B, C & D in figure 2 below, where "S" routers are SGM-capable,
   and "R" routers are not. Figure 3 shows the routing tables created
   via the SGM tunnels:

                                R4 ---- B
                               /
                              /
    A ----- S1 ---- R2 ---- S3                      R8 ---- C
                              \                    /
                               \                  /
                                R5 ---- R6 ---- S7
                                                 \
                                                  \
                                                    R9 ---- D
                              Figure 2


   Router S1 establishes a tunnel to SGM peer S3.



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 6]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   Router S3 establishes a tunnel to SGM peers S1 and S7.
   Router S7 establishes a tunnel to SGM peer S3.

    S1 routing table:     S3 routing table:     S7 routing table:
    Dest |  NextHop       Dest | NextHop        Dest | NextHop
   ------+----------     ------+---------      ------+---------
     B   |   S3             A  |   S1            A   |  S3
     C   |   S3             C  |   S7            B   |  S3
     D   |   S3             D  |   S7

                            Figure 3


   The source A will send an SGM packet to its default SGM router,
   S1, that includes the list of destinations for the packet. As
   described in section 2.2, the packet that A sends to S1 might look
   like this:

   Level 3 header:
     < dest = S1 >
     < src = A >
     < protocol = small group multicast >  (new protocol type)

   Level "3.5" header:
     < dest = B C D >
     < src = A >

   followed by the payload that A wants delivered to B, C and D.

   When S1 receives this packet it needs to properly process the
   multicast. The processing that this router does on receiving one
   of these small group multicast packets is as follows:

     o Perform a route table lookup in the SGM routing table to
       determine the SGM next hop for each of the destinations listed in
       the packet.
     o If no SGM next hop is found, replicate the packet and send a
       standard unicast to the destination.
     o For those destinations for which an SGM next hop is found,
       partition destinations based on their next hops.
     o Replicate the packet so that there's one copy of the packet for
       each of the SGM next hops found in the previous steps.
     o Modify the list of destinations in each of the copies so that
       the list in the copy for a given next hop includes just the
       destinations that ought to be routed through that next hop.
     o Send the modified copies of the packet on to the next hops.
     o Optimization: If there is only one destination for a particular
       SGM next hop, send the packet as a standard unicast packet to the
       destination, as there is no multicast gain by formatting it as an
       SGM packet.



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 7]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001




   So, in the example above, S1 will send a single packet on to S3
   with a destination list of < B C D >. This packet will be received
   by R2 as a unicast packet with destination S3, and R2 will forward
   it on, having no knowledge of SGM. When S3 receives the packet, it
   will, by the algorithm above, send one copy of the packet to
   destination < B > as an ordinary unicast packet, and 1 copy of the
   packet to S7 with a destination list of < C D >. R4, R5, and R6
   will behave as standard routers with no knowledge of SGM. When S7
   receives the packet, it will parse the packet and transmit
   ordinary unicast packets addressed to < C > and < D >
   respectively.

   By using tunnels, packets follow the "best possible" path to the
   various destinations (as determined by the unicast routing
   protocols), while at the same minimizing the total number of
   packets that must be transmitted on the network.

3.2. ICMP

   A second method for the gradual deployment of SGM in IP networks
   is based on the use of ICMP. In this case, forwarding follows as
   described in figure 1 (see section 2.2). However, an assumption is
   made that any router receiving an SGM packet that does not
   understand this new protocol will send an icmp message back to the
   source. This is a router requirement as specified in RFC1812,
   "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" [12]. Section 5.2.7.1 of
   RFC1812 says that a router should send an ICMP Destination
   Unreachable message with a code of 2, signifying Protocol
   Unreachable, if the transport protocol designated in a datagram is
   not supported in the transport layer of the final destination.

   Thus, a router that doesn't understand this new protocol should
   send an icmp "destination unreachable, protocol unreachable"
   message back to the source. (If the icmp message is lost for some
   reason, a subsequent small group multicast packet will cause
   another icmp to be sent.) This enables the source to know when a
   router doesn't understand the new protocol. Furthermore, since the
   icmp message will include the initial part of the original packet,
   the source will also know the destinations that are not reachable
   via SGM, so the source can use unicast packets to reach those
   destinations. When routing topology changes, additional icmp
   "destination unreachable, protocol unreachable" messages may be
   generated and the source may use unicasts for additional
   destinations. The source can also periodically send an SGM packet
   to the destinations that are on its "unicast list" i.e. the list
   of nodes that it is reaching via unicast. Destinations that become
   reachable via SGM (i.e. those do not appear in subsequent icmp
   "destination unreachable, protocol unreachable" messages) can then
   be removed from the unicast list. (Note that another possibility



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 8]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   would be to send an SGM "ping" periodically to the set of
   destinations and then use unicast to reach those destinations that
   don't respond to the ping).

   Thus, Small Group Multicast can perform some multicasting in an
   environment that includes "legacy" routers which do not understand
   SGM. It won't work particularly well if there are many routers
   that don't understand SGM but this backwards compatibility may be
   important since it makes some of the benefits of multicast
   possible before all the routers in a network have been upgraded.
   This can be very useful since it may take some time to upgrade all
   the routers in a large network.

   The use of the above method requires the bitmap style SGM packet
   encoding (see Appendix A.1.1).


4.   Host Considerations

4.1. Control Plane

   Unlike today's multicast schemes, SGM has no "control plane".
   There is no IGMP, and as mentioned above, there are no intradomain
   or interdomain multicast routing protocols or source discovery
   protocols. With SGM, the means by which multicast groups are
   defined is an application level issue and applications are not
   confined to the model in which hosts use IGMP to join a multicast
   group.

   This allows applications such as voice and multimedia conferencing
   to be programmed in a very natural way, i.e. the user can place
   the call to the parties he or she wants to talk to as he or she
   would using the conferencing buttons on his or her telephone. The
   application developer is not limited to the receiver-initiated
   joins of the IGMP model.

   Although there is no SGM "control plane", several control planes
   have been defined for the establishment of voice and multimedia
   conferences over IP networks, including SIP[13] and H.323[14].

   These protocols use two mechanisms in establishing sessions among
   multiple participants: multicast using today's IP multicast
   schemes and "multi-unicasting". In "multi-unicasting", the
   application keeps track of the participants' unicast addresses and
   sends a unicast to each of those addresses. For reasons described
   in the introductory section of this paper, multi-unicasting rather
   than multicast is the prevalent solution in use today.

   It's a simple matter to replace multi-unicast code with SGM
   multicast. All that the developer has to do is replace a loop that



Boivie et al.               Expires August 2001                [Page 9]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   sends a unicast to each of the participants by a single "sgm_send"
   that sends the data to the participants. Thus it's a simple matter
   to incorporate SGM into real conferencing applications.

   It's also worth mentioning that although SGM doesn't depend on a
   receiver-initiated join, the receiver-initiated join model can be
   implemented, if desired, by introducing a server that hosts can
   talk to join a conference.

4.2. SGM API

   As mentioned earlier, each of the final destinations of an SGM
   packet receives an ordinary UDP packet. This means that hosts can
   receive an SGM multicast with a standard, unmodified TCP/IP stack.
   Hosts can also transmit SGM packets with a standard TCP/IP stack
   with a small SGM library that sends SGM packets on a raw socket.
   This has been used to implement SGM based applications on both
   Unix and Windows platforms without any kernel changes.

   Another possibility is to modify the sockets interface slightly.
   For example, one might add an "sgm_sendto" function that works
   like sendto but that uses a list of destination addresses in place
   of the single address that sendto uses.


5.   Summary

   In summary, the disadvantages of Small Group Multicast are:
     o the extra bytes that are sent in a multicast packet for the list
       of destinations.
     o the need to use unicast packets in some cases to reach
       destinations that are behind "legacy" routers.
     o the need for a new IP stack in hosts (unless raw sockets are
       available in which case SGM packets can be sent over a raw
       socket).
     o the fact that SGM is not suitable for huge broadcast-like
       multicasts. It's targeted for "small" conferences.

   The key advantages are:
     o it's very scaleable; it can handle a very large number of small
       groups.
     o the work involved is limited to just the nodes that are on the
       multicast tree.
     o no per flow state information is stored on the routers.
     o no multicast route protocol messages are communicated or
       processed; no intra-AS or inter-AS route protocols.
     o minimum administrative complexity; no need for complicated inter-
       AS peering agreements; it's just as easy for a network
       administrator to support multicast as it is to support unicast,
       and it will be just as easy to support multicast across the



Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 10]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



       Internet as it is to support unicast.
     o traffic follows the correct paths; traffic is not concentrated
       in a small part of the network; minimum network latency; maximum
       network "efficiency".
     o no need for class D addresses which means:
       -  no need for a server that hands out class D addresses which
          can be a bottleneck or a point of failure.
       -  no one can join the class D group and "eavesdrop" on the
          class D address; the source knows who he's sending to.
     o SGM can be easily adapted to provide a "reliable multicast".

   The advantages of Small Group Multicast suggest that this scheme
   can be a very useful complement to the existing multicast schemes.
   Whereas the existing schemes can support a limited number of very
   large multicast groups, SGM can support a huge number (i.e.
   virtually an unlimited number) of small multicast groups and thus
   can play an important role in supporting applications such as
   conferencing applications on the Internet.


6.   Security Considerations

   An "eavesdropper" cannot join a multicast "group", as the source
   controls the membership of the multicast transmissions. Also,
   there is no need for a server to hand out class D addresses which
   could be subject to "denial of service" or other forms of attack.


7.   Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Dirk Ooms and
   Yuji Imai for their feedback and ideas. The authors would also
   like to thank Orit Levin of RADVision, and Pat Galvin and Jeff
   Durham of DataBeam, for providing an application developer's
   perspective. We also thank Joe Mambretti and Ralph Demuth of
   iCAIR, as well as Micah Beck and Bert Dempsey, co-leads of the
   Internet2 Distributed Storage Infrastructure Initiative, for their
   support in deploying SGM in the Internet2 environment.


8.   References

   [1] RFC 1075, Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol, D.
   Waitzman, C. Partridge, S.E. Deering, Nov. 1988

   [2] S.E. Deering. Multicast Routing in a Datagram Internetwork.
   Ph.D. thesis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Stanford University,
   Dec. 1991

   [3] RFC 1584, Multicast Extensions to OSPF, J. Moy, March 1994



Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 11]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001




   [4] S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, and
   L. Wei. The Pim Architecture for Wide-area Multicast Routing, ACM
   Transactions on Networks, April 1996

   [5] RFC 2189, Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
   Protocol Specification, A. Ballardie, Sept., 1997

   [6] RFC 2201, Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing
   Architecture, A. Ballardie, Sept. 1997

   [7] RFC 2236, Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2, W.
   Fenner, Nov. 1997

   [8] RFC 2362, Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
   Protocol Specification, D. Estrin et al, June 1998

   [9] D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, L. Wei, P.
   Sharma, and A. Helmy, "Protocol Independent Multicast-dense Mode
   (pim-dm): Protocol Specification", Work in Progress.

   [10] Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the Multicast Backbone
   (MBONE), ftp://venera.isi.edu/mbone/faq.txt

   [11] Reliable Multicast Transport Working Group web site,
   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rmt-charter.html, June 15, 1999

   [12] RFC 1812, Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers, F. Baker,
   June 1995

   [13] RFC 2543, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, M. Handley et al,
   March 1999

   [14] ITU-T Recommendation H.323 (2000), Packet-Based Multimedia
   Communications Systems


9.   Authors

   Rick Boivie
   IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
   30 Saw Mill River Rd.
   Hawthorne, NY 10532
   Phone: 914-784-3251
   Email: rhboivie@us.ibm.com

   Nancy Feldman
   IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
   30 Saw Mill River Rd.
   Hawthorne, NY 10532
   Phone: 914-784-3254
   Email: nkf@us.ibm.com

Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 12]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



A.   Appendix: SGM Encoding

   This appendix describes the packet formats for SGM layered on IP.
   An SGM header is comprised of a fixed header followed by one or
   more destination lists.

   SGM packets are assigned IP protocol type:
   IPPROTO_SGM      0xTBA


A.1. Fixed Header

   The SGM fixed header may be either a bitmap-style header or a
   vanilla-style header, as determined by the bitmap bit within the
   fixed header.

A.1.1     Bitmap Fixed Header

   The bitmap fixed header allows for efficient SGM header
   processing. Each destination corresponds to a bit in the bitmap;
   if set, then a packet should be forwarded to the corresponding
   destination; if clear, then the corresponding destination is
   ignored. A modification to the destination list is achieved by
   simply overwriting the appropriate bits in the bitmap.

   The bitmap fixed header encoding is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version|B|S|A|r|                    Bitmap . . .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |         GroupId               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Checksum              |   TTL         |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Version
      Four-bit field indicating the format of the SGM header. This
      document describes version 1.

   B-bit (Bitmap header)
      If this bit is set, the bitmap-style header is in use, else the
      vanilla header is in use. See section A.1.2.

   S-bit(SGM header persistence)
      If this bit is set, an SGM router MUST NOT convert the SGM
      packet to unicast packet(s), i.e. the packet MUST stay an SGM
      packet end-to-end.



Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 13]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001




   A-bit (Anonymity)
      If this bit is set, the destination address for which the
      corresponding bit in the bitmap is zero MUST be overwritten
      with zeros.

   r-bit (Reserved)
      Reserved bit. It must be zero on transmission and must be ignored
      on receipt.

   Bitmap
      This five octet field is a bitmap which corresponds to the SGM
      destinations in the header, such that the first SGM destination
      corresponds to the first bit, the second destination
      corresponds to the second bit, and so on. The i-th bit is set
      if the packet should be forwarded to the i-th destination.

      Note that when an ICMP error message is returned to the
      originating sender, it is guaranteed to contain only the first
      64-bits of the original IP datagram payload. Due to this
      limitation in the size of the ICMP error message, a size of
      five bytes was chosen for the bitmap. This is the maximum size
      that can be accommodated which still returns sufficient
      information in the ICMP error message, such that the sender can
      determine which destinations are not reachable via SGM (see
      section 3.2). Five bytes enforces a limit of at most forty
      destinations included within an SGM packet. If more than forty
      destinations are required, the vanilla style SGM header may be
      used (see section A.1.2).

   GroupID
      Two octet field that uniquely identifies a group of SGM
      destinations. This is returned in an ICMP error message, and
      may be used to correlate the error with the originating SGM
      group.

   Checksum
      Two octet checksum on the SGM header only. This is verified and
      recomputed at each point that the SGM header is modified. The
      checksum field is the 16 bit one's complement of the one's
      complement sum of all the bytes in the header. For purposes of
      computing the checksum, the value of the checksum field is
      zero.

   TTL (Time-to-Live)
      One octet field indicating the maximum time the SGM packet is
      allowed to remain in the SGM network. Each SGM router MUST
      decrement this field by one; if it is decremented to zero, the
      packet MUST be discarded.




Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 14]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



   Reserved
      One octet reserved field. It must be zero on transmission and must
      be ignored on receipt.

A.1.2     Vanilla Fixed Header

   The vanilla header does not contain a bitmap; SGM routers remove
   destinations when they are no longer on the forwarding path. This
   type of header gives the sender the opportunity to have a
   virtually unlimited number of destinations. However, this requires
   more per-router processing overhead than the bitmap header, as a
   modification to destination list requires the building of a new
   SGM header. Also note that this header style is not compatible
   with the ICMP deployment method (see section 3.2)

   The vanilla fixed header encoding is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version|B|S|res|      TTL      |           Checksum            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Version
      Four-bit field indicating the format of the SGM header. This
      document describes version 1.

   B-bit (Bitmap header)
      If this bit is set, the bitmap-style header is in use, else the
      vanilla header is in use. See section A.1.1.

   S-bit(SGM header persistence)
      If this bit is set, an SGM router MUST NOT convert the SGM
      packet to unicast packet(s), i.e. the packet MUST stay an SGM
      packet end-to-end.

   res (reserved)
      Reserved two bits. They must be zero on transmission and must be
      ignored on receipt.

   TTL (Time-to-Live)
      One octet field indicating the maximum time the SGM packet is
      allowed to remain in the SGM network. Each SGM router MUST
      decrement this field by one; if it is decremented to zero, the
      packet MUST be discarded.

   Checksum
      Two octet checksum on the SGM header. This is verified and
      recomputed at each point that the SGM header is processed. The



Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 15]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



      checksum field is the 16 bit one's complement of the one's
      complement sum of all the bytes in the header. For purposes of
      computing the checksum, the value of the checksum field is zero.


A.2. Destination List

   The destination list is comprised of a fixed segment followed by a
   variable length destination field. The destination field encoding
   is determined by the protocol and address family fields.

   The destination fixed header encoding is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   DestCnt     |   Protocol    |        Address Family         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Destination(s) (variable) ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   DestCnt
      One octet field containing the total number of destinations for
      the following Address family.

   Protocol
      One octet field containing the protocol of the receiving port
      for the following SGM destinations, e.g. IPPROTO_UDP (see
      section A.2.1).

   Address family
      Two octet field containing the identity of the Network Layer
      protocol associated with the DestAddress(es) that follow (see
      rfc 1700).

A.2.1     Destination(s): Protocol UDP

   The list of UDP destination(s) for the address family specified. A
   UDP "destination" is an IP-address/UDP-port pair.

   The encoding is as follows:











Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 16]


IETF Draft               Small Group Multicast           February 2001



    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       DestAddress(es) ...
   ~
   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           PortNum(s)          |       ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~
   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   DestAddress(es)
      List of destination address(es). Each address length is four
      bytes for IPv4 and sixteen bytes for IPv6.

   PortNum(s)
      List of two octet destination port number(s), where each port
      corresponds in placement to the preceding DestAddress(es).
































Boivie et al.              Expires August 2001              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/