[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 01
Network Working Group Deborah Estrin
INTERNET-DRAFT USC/ISI
Expiration Date: November 1999 Dino Farinacci
cisco Systems
May 17, 1999
Bi-Directional Shared Trees in PIM-SM
<draft-farinacci-bidir-pim-01.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
This proposal extends the PIM-SM [1] mechanism for multicast
datagram forwarding. PIM-SM constructs and maintains uni-directional
shared trees and uni-directional source trees. We describe how we can
extend the elements of operation of sparse-mode PIM to support bi-
directional shared trees.
1. Introduction
A uni-directional shared tree allows sources to send multicast
datagrams to members of a multicast group. Members receive packets
sent to the group by joining the shared tree, using a particular node
in the network as the root of the shared tree. The root of the shared
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 1]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
tree is called the Rendezvous Point (RP). When using undirectional
shared trees, all sources' datagrams initially go to the root (RP) of
the tree before being delivered down the distribution tree. As a
result, there can be suboptimal delivery paths to the receivers close
to the source.
In PIM-SM, the RP typically joins back to the source to draw
datagrams down directly and natively (no encapsulation) from the
source to the RP. The RP then forwards the datagrams down the uni-
directional shared tree to the receivers. Eventually, receivers may
join to the source as well, thus drawing datagrams down a source
specific, uni-directional, shortest path tree. Or the receivers may
continue to receive datagrams on the shared tree.
When using bi-directional shared trees, data can flow in either
direction on a branch of the tree. This allows improved data delivery
to receivers close to the source because the traffic traveling
upstream to the root node is "turned around" and forwarded on
downstream branches [2].
The bi-directional shared trees described in this extension to PIM-SM
are used both to distribute datagrams from sources to the RP, as well
as to distribute datagrams directly to receivers. Moreover, the
protocol does not build source-specific trees from sources to the RP,
nor to receivers. Instead, source transmissions travel up the shared
tree toward the RP providing coverage to receivers along the way.
The RP only needs to forward datagrams downward on those branches of
the shared tree not covered by the path from the source to the RP.
However, bi-directional trees are incompatible with source specific
uni-directional trees and so no switching to source-trees is allowed.
Source-trees have the best delay characteristics so there is a
tradeoff between uni-directional shared trees with source-trees and
bi-directional shared trees. For large numbers of moderate to low
rate sources, bi-directional PIM may offer significant advantages.
2. Pros and Cons of Bi-Directional Shared Trees
There are 3 basic advantages of bi-directional shared trees:
1. State is reduced compared to source trees. Each router in
the multicast routing domain needs only keep state for the
group and not each source sending to each group. [2]
2. Datagrams from sources to topologically near-by receivers do not have
to travel all the way to the root of the shared tree. These improved
distribution paths also support better scoping semantics for
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 2]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
applications that might use TTL based expanding ring scope to look
for nearby resources.
3. Bursty sources can send with no or little state in routers.
There are 3 basic disadvantages of bi-directional shared trees:
1. Since all traffic eventually goes to the root of the tree, there is a
traffic concentration point at the root node and links leading to
it (pruning mechanisms could be added but at the cost of additional
state and complexity). Traffic always flows to the root node even when
it doesn't have to. That is, if the root node has a single sender
branch, the root does not take part in forwarding traffic but it must
receive the traffic because downstream nodes don't know the group
membership tree near the root.
2. The path taken between the source and receivers might not travel
over the shortest path, although it is likely to be a shorter
path than via a uni-directional shared tree.
3. Bi-directional trees are incompatible with uni-directional
source-trees. There is an increase in complexity when both are
used for the same group.
Compared to CBT, the bi-directional trees proposed in this
specification differ in two respects:
1. Non-member senders do not encapsulate their data to the root, the data
is forwarded along the same path that it would take if the sender were
also a member.
2. The protocol reuses much of the existing PIM-SM implementation.
3. Modifications to PIM
A strong goal of this proposal is to make as few changes as possible
to PIM and multicast forwarding. We also wish to make the changes
compatible, to enable a phased (incrementally deployed) transition to
bi-directional shared tree PIM. Therefore, we use (*,G) state to
describe bi-directional shared tree state (traditionally (*,G) has
been used to describe uni-directional shared tree state).
By definition a PIM bi-directional shared tree group may not have any
(S,G) state stored for the group. There are exceptions when mixing
non-bidir PIM routers with bidir PIM routers (see later in this
specification).
We assume that at the same time a router learns the RP for a group,
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 3]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
it will know if the group is to operate in bi-directional shared tree
mode or uni-directional shared tree mode. This assumption greatly
simplifies the deployment and operation of the protocol.
4. Modifications to Multicast Forwarding
There will be modifications to multicast forwarding since bi-
directional shared tree delivery requires traffic to flow upstream
(towards the root). This is contrary to RPF forwarding rules used on
uni-directional shared trees (datagrams can only be forwarded away
from the root node, downstream towards receivers).
5. No Modifications to Multicast Capable Hosts
This proposal does not require modifications to multicast capable
hosts [3]. Hosts that receive multicast datagrams with the UMP
option must ignore the option and accept the datagram [6].
6. How are hosts Joined to a Bi-directional Shared Tree
No change is required in hosts. Receiving hosts use IGMP [3] (as they
do today) to join multicast groups. The attached designated router
(DR) will initiate joining of the shared tree.
The attached routers perform the same actions as are done to graft
branches on the uni-directional tree. That is, the designated router
(DR), on the attached subnet with the receiver, will send a PIM
Join/Prune message for (*,G) with the RP in the Join-List toward the
RP for the group. Routers maintain (*,G) state as defined in the
sparse-mode PIM specification. [1]
7. How are Source's Datagrams sent onto a Bi-directional Shared Tree
No change is required to hosts. A source host will send a multicast
datagram by transmitting on its attached interface (as it does today)
[3]. The attached DR will initiate the delivery of the multicast
datagram upstream towards the RP.
When a datagram flows upstream, a receiving router must know that it
can bypass the RPF check on the (*,G) entry. To accomplish this, we
introduce a new IP option called the Upstream Multicast Packet (UMP).
The UMP IP header option is encoded as follows:
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 4]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Option Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upstream Router's IP address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Type value is 152 (0x98). That is, the 1-bit copied flag is
set to 1, the 2-bit option class is set to 0, and the 5-bit option
number is 24.
When a router forwards a multicast datagram upstream, it identifies
the upstream router in the option. Only the indicated upstream router
is responsible for forwarding the datagram upstream. When a router
forwards a multicast datagram with the UMP option, it will multicast
the datagram on the attached upstream subnet so other routers can
forward datagrams down the shared tree if they have (*,G) state. Any
directly attached members also receive the datagram.
In most cases, only a single copy of the datagram is sent upstream,
taking advantage of multi-access/multicast capable media whereever
possible. However, on the first hop LAN, there may be two datagrams
that traverse the LAN. See next section for details.
It is important to note that symmetry between receivers and senders
along the same branch must be maintained. That is, a router must join
along the same path it would forward traffic upstream or loops could
result. This specification forces symmetry because the same choice
for forwarding and joining is achieved by using the RPF neighbor to
the RP.
8. First-hop LAN
When a source transmits a multicast datagram, there is one router on
the attached LAN that will insert the UMP option. The PIM designated
router (DR) will be responsible for this. The DR will insert the UMP
option using the address of the next-hop router it knows to reach the
RP for the (*,G) entry.
There is one case where two datagrams traverse the first-hop LAN. The
first datagram is transmitted as multicast by the source and the
second is transmitted by the DR as MAC-level unicast to the next-hop
upstream router. This only occurs when the DR uses the first-hop LAN
as its RPF interface for (*,G). If the DR is an upstream router, the
extra datagram is not sent because the RPF interface for (*,G) is not
the first-hop LAN.
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 5]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
The DR is made responsible for selecting the upstream router in order
to avoid inconsistent join and forwarding decisions if multiple
downstream routers on the LAN receive joins or datagrams for the same
group. If all routers on a LAN always ran a common link state
protocol or always had some other means to guarantee consistent
routing information, then this would not be necessary. However, in
order to allow loop free operation in the widest range of
environments, without making restrictive assumptions about unicast
routing protocols, configurations and policies, we make use of the DR
to enforce consistent decisions.
A network administrator can control which router is the PIM DR [5] to
avoid particular suboptimal cases.
9. Multicast Forwarding Rules
The following steps describe the rules for bi-directional shared tree
forwarding in PIM. When a router receives a multicast datagram, it
may arrive on the RPF interface for a (*,G) entry or another (the
non-RPF) interface.
A. When a multicast datagram arrives on the RPF interface toward the RP:
A1. A multicast routing table lookup is performed. Only a (*,G) entry
can be returned (based on our definition that PIM bi-directional
shared trees groups will not have (S,G) route entries).
If the entry is not found, the datagram is silently discarded.
A2. If the entry is found, the datagram is sent out each outgoing
interface that resides in the outgoing interface list for the (*,G)
entry. In this situation, the router doesn't care if the (*,G) tree
state is bi-directional or uni-directional.
A3. Before replicating the datagram on each outgoing interface, a router
checks to see if the UMP option is present. If so, it can either
remove the option or replace the existing address with 0.0.0.0 in
the Upstream Router IP Address field. This is to indicate to
downstream routers the datagram is not traveling upstream.
A4. If the UMP option isn't present and the router is DR on the
interface the datagram was received on and the source is directly
attached, the DR is responsible for inserting the UMP option. It
includes in the UMP option address the next-hop IP address of its
RPF neighbor for (*,G). The DR forwards the datagram using the
MAC-level address (unicast address) of this RPF neighbor.
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 6]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
A5. If the UMP option isn't present and the router isn't the DR, or the
source isn't directly attached, the datagram is silently discarded.
B. When multicast datagram arrives on a non-RPF interface toward the RP:
B1. A multicast routing table lookup is performed. Only a (*,G) entry
can be returned (based on our definition of PIM bi-directional shared
trees).
B2. The router looks at the UMP option. If the option is present and
the Upstream Router IP Address is not its own IP address on the
received interface, the datagram is silently discarded.
B3. If the UMP option is not present and the router is directly connected
to the source of the multicast datagram and is the DR on the
interface, the DR inserts the UMP option and follows the steps B4.1
and B4.2.
B4. If the UMP option is present and the Upstream Router IP Address field
contains the IP address of the receiving router (on the received
interface), it will forward the datagram as follows:
B4.1 The datagram is sent out each outgoing interface that resides
in the outgoing interface list for the (*,G) entry except for
the interface on which the datagram was received on. Before
sending out each interface, the router may remove the UMP
option from the datagram or replace the existing address with
0.0.0.0 in the Upstream Router IP Address field.
B4.2 The datagram is forwarded on the RPF interface for (*,G) by
replacing the Upstream Router IP Address field in the UMP
option with the next-hop address of the router that is used
to reach the RP.
10. Distinguishing Bi-Directional Shared Tree Groups from other Groups
When routers discover the identity of the RP for a multicast group
they can determine if the group will operate in bi-directional shared
tree mode or uni-directional tree mode. We modify the Encoded-Group
Address fields in PIM Bootstrap and Candidate-RP Advertisement
messages to include the Bidir-bit (see bit B below):
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 7]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
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 |B| Reserved | Mask Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Multicast Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the Bidir-bit is set, all upgraded bi-directional PIM routers
will follow the forwarding rules described in this specification.
11. Mixing Bi-Directional Capable with Uni-Directional-Only Routers
It will take time to upgrade all PIM routers in a domain to be bi-
directional shared tree capable. However, enabling bi-directional
shared tree routers in an existing network can be easy and simple.
First, no special attention at the protocol level needs to be taken
if the network is engineered where you can place bidir PIM routers
strategically near sources. That is, if sources are located on
sender-only branches (no Joins have traveled up that branch) of the
bi-directional shared tree, only that branch needs to be upgraded
with bi-directional shared tree capable routers. All other routers on
receiver branches forward based on (*,G) uni-directional shared tree
forwarding rules.
When the network cannot be engineered to locate bi-directional shared
tree capable routers on sender-only branches, the following
transition support can be implemented:
o A router will detect if its upstream neighboring router toward the
RP is bi-directional shared tree capable or not. We will use the
Bidir-Capable PIM Hello Option to convey this information.
o A router that is one-hop downstream (of the RP) from a non-bidir
capable router will maintain (S,G) state and will be responsible for
forwarding multicast traffic as to the RP by Registering to the RP as
it would if it was a DR (or MBR) in uni-directional mode. When the
data arrives at the RP, it can be delivered on the uni-directional
shared-tree (or any source trees that overlap with the shared tree).
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 8]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
We define the following PIM Hello Option:
Bidir-Capable Option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionType | OptionLength |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionValue |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . |
| . |
| . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionType | OptionLength |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OptionValue |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OptionType = 19 (decimal)
OptionLength
The length of the option payload in bytes. This is set to 0.
Therefore, the following encoding is inserted in the PIM Hello mes-
sage:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 19 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
By definition, in a pure bi-directional router environment, a bidir
capable PIM router will not create (S,G) state when it either 1)
receives a datagram or 2) receives any PIM control message. However,
there is one exception. When a router receives a datagram that is
traveling upstream (the UMP option is present or the router is the DR
directly attached to the source) and the upstream neighbor toward the
RP is not bidir capable, it will create (S,G) state and set the
necessary flags indicating datagrams that match the route entry will
be Register encapsulated to the RP. In this case, the router still
doesn't accept join messages (and therefore doesn't populate the
(S,G) olist) if there are routers upstream that are sending (S,G)
Joins or Prunes. A router that does this transition logic is called,
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 9]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
a bidir border router.
If a bidir router creates (S,G) state for a bi-directional group, it
will not send Join/Prune messages for the entry. If a bidir router
changes its RPF neighbor toward the RP and the RPF neighbor is bidir
capable, it will delete its (S,G) entries.
A bidir router must do longest match lookups for a group that is in
bi-directional tree mode. This handles the case where the RP
forwards datagrams down a branch that has a both a sender and a
member on it and avoids datagrams returning to the sender. In this
case, a bidir border router should RPF fail for such datagrams since
it will use the (S,G) entry rather than the (*,G) entry for the
forwarding decision.
If the RP is a bidir capable router and it receives a Register
message, it will not create (S,G) state. It will forward the data
encapsulated in the Register message down the shared tree. The RP
will only send a Register-Stop if there are no members for the group
(the (*,G) outgoing interface list is empty). An RP will receive a
Register message in two cases, 1) the DR is a non-bidir capable
router, or 2) it was sent by a bidir border router.
If the RP is not bidir capable and it receives a Register from either
a non-bidir capable DR or a bidir border router, it may trigger a
Join toward the source. If there are any bidir capable routers on the
path, they will not create (S,G) state. In this case, the RP will
never get data natively and therefore never send Register-Stop
messages. The data will continue to be delivered via Register
encapsulation.
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 10]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
The following shows all possible cases mixing non-bidir (old) and bidir
capable (new) routers. Each column shows the capability of 1) the RP, 2)
an router between the DR and the RP, and 3) the DR. The following
notation
is used:
"new-rp" - RP is bidir capable
"old-rp" - RP is non-bidir capable
"old" - router is non-bidir capable
"new" - router is bidir capaple
"new-dr" - DR is bidir capable
"old-dr" - DR is non-bidir capable
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
old-rp old-rp old-rp old-rp new-rp new-rp new-rp new-rp
old old new new new new old old
old-dr new-dr old-dr new-dr new-dr old-dr new-dr old-dr
(1) This case is uni-directional mode.
(2) The bidir DR sends Registers and does not forward datagrams with
the UMP option. It does this because it detects the upstream router
is not bidir-capable. The RP joins back to the source through the
intermediate router. The intermediate router's join is ignored by
the bidir DR. Datagrams get to receivers via Register encapsulation
only from the DR.
(3) The non-bidir DR sends Registers. The non-bidir RP may send joins
but the bidir intermediate router will ignore them. Datagrams get
to receivers via Register encapsulation only from the DR.
(4) The bidir DR forwards multicast datagram with the UMP option
upstream. It does this because it detects the upstream router is
bidir-capable. The bidir intermediate router (acting as a bidir
border router) sends Registers to the non-bidir RP. Datagrams get
to receivers via Register encapsulation only from the bidir border
router.
(5) This case is bi-directional shared tree mode.
(6) The non-bidir DR will Register to the bidir RP. The bidir RP will
not send Joins back to the source. It only Register-Stops if there
are no members. The bidir intermediate router is not involved in
forwarding multicast datagrams. Datagrams get to receivers via
Register encapsulation only from the DR.
(7) The bidir DR will Register to the bidir RP. It does this because it
detects the upstream router is non-bidir capable. It is performing
as a bidir border router. The bidir RP will not send Joins back to
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 11]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
the source. It only Register-Stops if there are no members. The
non-bidir intermediate router is not involved in forwarding
multicast datagrams. Datagrams get to receivers via Register
encapsulation only from the DR.
(8) The non-bidir DR will Register to the bidir RP. The bidir RP will
not send Joins back to the source. It only Register-Stops if there
are no members. The non-bidir intermediate router is not involved
in forwarding multicast datagrams. Datagrams get to receivers via
Register encapsulation only from the DR.
12. Security Considerations
When IPsec [4] is used on a multicast datagram, the UMP IP option
will not be part of the encrypted payload. This is justified by
allowing routers to be performant when forwarding datagrams upstream.
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 12]
Internet Draft PIM Bi-Directional Shared Trees May 1999
13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Rusty Eddy (USC), Radia Perlman
(Sun), Tony Speakman (cisco), and Liming Wei (cisco) for their
comments and contributions to this specification.
14. Author Information
Deborah Estrin
ISI/USC
estrin@usc.edu
Dino Farinacci
cisco Systems, Inc.
dino@cisco.com
15. References
[1] Estrin, et al., "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-
SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.
[2] A.J. Ballardie, P.F. Francis, and J.Crowcroft. Core based trees.
In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, San Francisco, 1993.
[3] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC
1112, August 1989.
[4] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol",
RFC 1825, August 1995.
[5] Wei, L., Farinacci, D., "PIM Version 2 DR Election Priority Option",
INTERNET-DRAFT, March 1998.
[6] ISI/USC, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, September 1981.
Estrin, Farinacci [Page 13]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/