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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 4541

Network Working Group                                     M. Christensen
Internet Draft                                           Thrane & Thrane
Expiration Date: March  2004                                  K. Kimball
Category: Informational                                  Hewlett-Packard
                                                             F. Solensky
                                                     West Ridge Networks
                                                            October 2003


           Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches
                    <draft-ietf-magma-snoop-10.txt>


Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

     This memo describes the recommendations for IGMP- and MLD-snooping
     switches. These are based on best current practices for IGMPv2,
     with further considerations for IGMPv3- and MLDv2-snooping.
     Additional areas of relevance, such as link layer topology changes
     and Ethernet-specific encapsulation issues, are also considered.





Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 1]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


1.  Introduction

     The IEEE bridge standard [BRIDGE] specifies how LAN packets are
     'bridged', or as is more commonly used today, switched between LAN
     segments. The operation of a switch with respect to multicast
     packets can be summarized as follows.  When processing a packet
     whose destination MAC address is a multicast address, the switch
     will forward a copy of the packet into each of the remaining
     network interfaces that are in the forwarding state in accordance
     with [BRIDGE].  The spanning tree algorithm ensures that the
     application of this rule at every switch in the network will make
     the packet accessible to all nodes connected to the network.

     This behaviour works well for broadcast packets that are intended
     to be seen or processed by all connected nodes.  In the case of
     multicast packets, however, this approach could lead to less
     efficient use of network bandwidth, particularly when the packet is
     intended for only a small number of nodes.  Packets will be flooded
     into network segments where no node has any interest in receiving
     the packet.  While nodes will rarely incur any processing overhead
     to filter packets addressed to unrequested group addresses, they
     are unable to transmit new packets onto the shared media for the
     period of time that the multicast packet is flooded.  In general,
     significant bandwidth can be wasted by flooding.

     In recent years, a number of commercial vendors have introduced
     products described as "IGMP snooping switches" to the market.
     These devices do not adhere to the conceptual model that provides
     the strict separation of functionality between different
     communications layers in the ISO model, and instead utilize
     information in the upper level protocol headers as factors to be
     considered in processing at the lower levels.  This is analogous to
     the manner in which a router can act as a firewall by looking into
     the transport protocol's header before allowing a packet to be
     forwarded to its destination address.

     In the case of IP multicast traffic, an IGMP snooping switch
     provides the benefit of conserving bandwidth on those segments of
     the network where no node has expressed interest in receiving
     packets addressed to the group address.  This is in contrast to
     normal switch behavior where multicast traffic is typically
     forwarded on all interfaces.

     Many switch datasheets state support for IGMP snooping, but no
     recommendations for this exist today.  It is the authors' hope that
     the information presented in this draft will supply this
     foundation.




Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 2]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     The recommendations presented here are based on the following
     information sources: The IGMP specifications [RFC1112], [RFC2236]
     and [IGMPv3], vendor-supplied technical documents [CISCO], bug
     reports [MSOFT], discussions with people involved in the design of
     IGMP snooping switches, MAGMA mailing list discussions, and on
     replies by switch vendors to an implementation questionnaire.

     Interoperability issues that arise between different versions of
     IGMP are not the focus of this document.  Interested readers are
     directed to [IGMPv3] for a thorough description of problem areas.

     The suggestions in this document are based on IGMP, which applies
     only to IPv4.  For IPv6, Multicast Listener Discovery [MLD] must be
     used instead.  Because MLD is based on IGMP, we do not repeat the
     entire description and recommendations for MLD snooping switches.
     Instead, we point out the few cases where there are differences
     from IGMP.

     Note that the IGMP snooping function should apply only to IPv4
     multicasts.  Other multicast packets, such as IPv6, might be
     suppressed by IGMP snooping if additional care is not taken in the
     implementation as mentioned in the recommendations section.  It is
     desired not to restrict the flow of non-IPv4 multicasts other than
     to the degree which would happen as a result of regular bridging
     functions.  Likewise, MLD snooping switches are discouraged from
     using topological information learned from IPv6 traffic to alter
     the forwarding of IPv4 multicast packets.


2.  IGMP Snooping Recommendations

     The following sections list the recommendations for an IGMP
     snooping switch.  The recommendation is stated and is supplemented
     by a description of a possible implementation approach.  All
     implementation discussions are examples only and there may well be
     other ways to achieve the same functionality.


2.1.  Forwarding rules

     The IGMP snooping functionality is separated into a control section
     (IGMP forwarding) and a data section (Data forwarding).


2.1.1.  IGMP Forwarding Rules

     1)  A snooping switch should forward IGMP Membership Reports only
         to those ports where multicast routers are attached.



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 3]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


         Alternatively stated: a snooping switch should not forward IGMP
         Membership Reports to ports on which only hosts are attached.
         An administrative control may be provided to override this
         restriction, allowing the report messages to be flooded to
         other ports.

         This is the main IGMP snooping functionality for the control
         path.

         Sending membership reports to other hosts can result, for
         IGMPv1 and IGMPv2, in unintentionally preventing a host from
         joining a specific multicast group.

         When an IGMPv1 or IGMPv2 host receives a membership report for
         a group address that it is intending to join, the host will
         suppress its own membership report for the same group. This
         join or message suppression is a requirement for IGMPv1 and
         IGMPv2 hosts.  However, if a switch does not receive a
         membership report from the host it will not forward multicast
         data to it.

         This is not a problem in an IGMPv3-only network because there
         is no suppression of IGMP Membership reports.

         The administrative control allows IGMP Membership Report
         messages to be processed by network monitoring equipment such
         as packet analyzers or port replicators.

         The switch supporting IGMP snooping must maintain a list of
         multicast routers and the ports on which they are attached.
         This list can be constructed in any combination of the
         following ways:

         a)  This list should be built by the snooping switch sending
             Multicast Router Solicitation messages as described in IGMP
             Multicast Router Discovery [MRDISC].  It may also snoop
             Multicast Router Advertisement messages sent by and to
             other nodes.

         b)  The arrival port for IGMP Queries (sent by multicast
             routers) where the source address is not 0.0.0.0.

             The 0.0.0.0 address represents a special case where the
             switch is proxying IGMP Queries for faster network
             convergence, but is not itself the Querier.  The switch
             does not use its own IP address (even if it has one),
             because this would cause the Queries to be seen as coming
             from a newly elected Querier. The 0.0.0.0 address is used



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 4]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


             to indicate that the Query packets are NOT from a multicast
             router.

         c)  Ports explicitly configured by management to be IGMP-
             forwarding ports, in addition to or instead of any of the
             above methods to detect router ports.

     2)  IGMP snooping switches may also implement "proxy-reporting" in
         which reports received from downstream hosts are summarized and
         used to build internal membership states as described in
         [PROXY].  The IGMP proxy-reporting switch would then report its
         own state in response to upstream queriers.  If the switch does
         not already have an IP address assigned to it, the source
         address for these reports should be set to all-zeros.

         An IGMP proxy-reporting switch may act as Querier for the
         downstream hosts while proxy reporting to the 'real' upstream
         queriers.

         It should be noted that there may be multiple IGMP proxy-
         reporting switches in the network all using the 0.0.0.0 source
         IP address.  In this case the switches can be uniquely
         identified through their link layer source MAC address.

         IGMP membership reports must not be rejected by an IGMP
         snooping switch because of a source IP address of 0.0.0.0.

     3)  The switch that supports IGMP snooping must flood all
         unrecognized IGMP messages to all other ports and must not
         attempt to make use of any information beyond the end of the
         network layer header.

         In addition, earlier versions of IGMP should interpret IGMP
         fields as defined for their versions and must not alter these
         fields when forwarding the message.  When generating new
         messages, a given IGMP version should set fields to the
         appropriate values for its own version.  If any fields are
         reserved or otherwise undefined for a given IGMP version, the
         fields should be ignored when parsing the message and must be
         set to zeroes when new messages are generated by
         implementations of that IGMP version.  An exception may occur
         if the switch is performing a spoofing function, and is aware
         of the settings for new or reserved fields that would be
         required to correctly spoof for a different IGMP version.

         The reason to worry about these trivialities is that IGMPv3
         overloads the old IGMP query message using the same type number
         (0x11) but with an extended header.  Therefore there is a risk



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 5]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


         that IGMPv3 queries may be interpreted as older version queries
         by, for example, IGMPv2 snooping switches. This has already
         been reported [IETF56] and is discussed in section 2.2.


     4)  An IGMP snooping switch should be aware of link layer topology
         changes caused by Spanning Tree operation. When a port is
         enabled or disabled by Spanning Tree, a General Query may be
         sent on all active non-router ports in order to reduce network
         convergence time.  Non-Querier switches should be aware of
         whether the Querier is in IGMPv3 mode. If so, the switch should
         not spoof any General Queries unless it is able to send an
         IGMPv3 Query that adheres to the most recent information sent
         by the true Querier. In no case should a switch introduce a
         spoofed IGMPv2 Query into an IGMPv3 network, as this may create
         excessive network disruption.

         If the switch is not the Querier, it should use the 'all-zeros'
         IP Source Address in these proxy queries (even though some
         hosts may elect to not process queries with a 0.0.0.0 IP Source
         Address).  When such proxy queries are received, they must not
         be included in the Querier election process.

     5)  An IGMP snooping switch must not make use of information in
         IGMP packets where the IP or IGMP headers have checksum or
         integrity errors.  The switch should not flood such packets but
         if it does, it should also take some note of the event (i.e.,
         increment a counter).  These errors and their processing are
         further discussed in [IGMPv3], [MLD] and [MLDv2].

     6)  The snooping switch must not rely exclusively on the appearance
         of IGMP Group Leave announcements to determine when entries
         should be removed from the forwarding table.  It should
         implement a membership timeout mechanism such as the router-
         side functionality of the IGMP protocol as described in the
         IGMP and MLD specifications (See Normative Reference section
         for IGMPv1-3 and MLDv1-2) on all its non-router ports.  This
         timeout value should be configurable.


2.1.2.  Data Forwarding Rules

     1)  Packets with a destination IP address outside 224.0.0.X which
         are not IGMP should be forwarded according to group-based port
         membership tables and must also be forwarded on router ports.

         This is the main IGMP snooping functionality for the data path.




Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 6]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


         One approach that an implementation could take would be to
         maintain separate membership and multicast router tables in
         software and then "merge" these tables into a forwarding cache.

     2)  Packets with a destination IP (DIP) address in the 224.0.0.X
         range which are not IGMP must be forwarded on all ports.

         This recommendation is based on fact that many host systems do
         not send Join IP multicast addresses in this range before
         sending or listening to IP multicast packets.  Furthermore,
         since the 224.0.0.X address range is defined as link-local (not
         to be routed) it seems unnecessary to keep state for each
         address in this range.  Additionally, some routers operate in
         the 224.0.0.X address range without issuing IGMP Joins, and
         these applications would break if the switch were to prune them
         due to not having seen a Join Group message from the router.

     3)  An unregistered packet is defined as an IPv4 multicast packet
         with a destination address which does not match any of the
         groups announced in earlier IGMP Membership Reports.

         If a switch receives an unregistered packet, it must forward
         that packet on all ports to which an IGMP router is attached.
         A switch may default to forwarding unregistered packets on all
         ports.  Switches that do not forward unregistered packets to
         all ports must include a configuration option to force the
         flooding of unregistered packets on specified ports.

         In an environment where IGMPv3 hosts are mixed with snooping
         switches that do not yet support IGMPv3, the switch's failure
         to flood unregistered streams could prevent v3 hosts from
         receiving their traffic.  Alternatively, in environments where
         the snooping switch supports all of the IGMP versions that are
         present, flooding unregistered streams may cause IGMP hosts to
         be overwhelmed by multicast traffic, even to the point of not
         receiving Queries and failing to issue new membership reports
         for their own groups.

         It is encouraged that snooping switches at least recognize and
         process IGMPv3 Join Reports, even if this processing is limited
         to the behavior for IGMPv2 Joins, i.e., is done without
         considering any additional "include source" or "exclude source"
         filtering. When IGMPv3 Joins are not recognized, a snooping
         switch may incorrectly prune off the unregistered data streams
         for the groups (as noted above); alternatively, it may fail to
         add in forwarding to any new IGMPv3 hosts if the group has
         previously been joined as IGMPv2 (because the data stream is
         seen as already having been registered).



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 7]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     4)  All non-IPv4 multicast packets should continue to be flooded
         out all remaining ports in the forwarding state as per normal
         IEEE bridging operations.

         This recommendation is a result of the fact that groups made up
         of IPv4 hosts and IPv6 hosts are completely separate and
         distinct groups.  As a result, information gleaned from the
         topology between members of an IPv4 group would not be
         applicable when forming the topology between members of an IPv6
         group.

     5)  IGMP snooping switches may maintain forwarding tables based on
         either MAC addresses or IP addresses.  If a switch supports
         both types of forwarding tables then the default behavior
         should be to use IP addresses.  IP address based forwarding is
         preferred because the mapping between IP multicast addresses
         and link-layer multicast addresses is ambiguous.  In the case
         of Ethernet, there is a multiplicity of 1 Ethernet address to
         32 IP addresses [RFC1112].

     6)  Switches which rely on information in the IP header should
         verify that the IP header checksum is correct.  If the checksum
         fails, the information in the packet must not be incorporated
         into the forwarding table.  Further, the packet should be
         discarded.

     7)  When IGMPv3 "include source" and "exclude source" membership
         reports are received on shared segments, the switch needs to
         forward the superset of all received membership reports onto
         the shared segment.  Forwarding of traffic from a particular
         source S to a group G must happen if at least one host on the
         shared segment reports an IGMPv3 membership of the type
         INCLUDE(G, Slist1) or EXCLUDE(G, Slist2) where S is an element
         of Slist1 and not an element of Slist2.

         The practical implementation of the (G,S1,S2,...) based data
         forwarding tables are not within the scope of this document.
         However, one possibility is to maintain two (G,S) forwarding
         lists: one for the INCLUDE filter where a match of a specific
         (G,S) is a requirement before forwarding will happen, and one
         for the EXCLUDE filter where a match of a specific (G,S) will
         result in no forwarding.









Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 8]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


2.2.  IGMP snooping-related problems

     A special problem arises in networks consisting of IGMPv3 routers
     as well as IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 hosts interconnected by an IGMPv2
     snooping switch as recently reported [IETF56].  The router will
     continue to maintain IGMPv3 even in the presence of IGMPv2 hosts,
     and thus the network will not converge on IGMPv2.  But it is likely
     that the IGMPv2 snooping switch will not recognize or process the
     IGMPv3 membership reports.  Groups for these unrecognized reports
     will then either be flooded (with all of the problems that may
     create for hosts in a network with a heavy multicast load) or
     pruned by the snooping switch.

     Therefore, it is recommended that in such a network, the multicast
     router be configured to use IGMPv2. If this is not possible, and if
     the snooping switch cannot recognize and process the IGMPv3
     membership reports, it is instead recommended that the switch's
     IGMP snooping functionality be disabled, as there is no clear
     solution to this problem.


3.  IPv6 Considerations

     In order to avoid confusion, the previous discussions have been
     based on the IGMP protocol which only applies to IPv4 multicast.
     In the case of IPv6 most of the above discussions are still valid
     with a few exceptions which we will describe here.

     The control and data forwarding rules in the IGMP section can, with
     a few considerations, also be applied to MLD.  This means that the
     basic functionality of intercepting MLD packets, and building
     membership lists and multicast router lists, is the same as for
     IGMP.

     In IPv6, the data forwarding rules are more straight forward
     because MLD is mandated for addresses with scope 2 (link-scope) or
     greater.  The only exception is the address FF02::1 which is the
     all hosts link-scope address for which MLD messages are never sent.
     Packets with the all hosts link-scope address should be forwarded
     on all ports.

     MLD messages are also not sent regarding groups with addresses in
     the range FF00::/15 (which encompasses both the reserved FF00::/16
     and node-local FF01::/16 IPv6 address spaces).  These addresses
     should never appear in packets on the link.

     Equivalent to the IPv4 behaviors regarding the null IP Source
     address, MLD membership reports must not be rejected by an MLD



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 9]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     snooping switch because of an unspecified IP source address (::).
     Additionally, if a non-Querier switch spoofs any General Queries
     (as addressed in Section 2.1 above, for Spanning Tree topology
     changes), the switch should use the null IP source address (::)
     when sending said queries.  When such proxy queries are received,
     they must not be included in the Querier election process.

     The three major differences between IPv4 and IPv6 in relation to
     multicast are:

     -  The IPv6 protocol for multicast group maintenance is called
        Multicast Listener Discovery [MLDv2].  MLDv2 uses ICMPv6 message
        types instead of IGMP message types.

     -  The RFCs [IPV6-ETHER] and [IPV6-FDDI] describe how 24 of the 128
        bit DIP address are used to form the 48 bit DMAC addresses for
        multicast groups, while [IPV6-TOKEN] describes the mapping for
        token ring DMAC addresses by using three low-order bits.  The
        specification [IPV6-1394] makes use of a 6 bit channel number.

     -  Multicast router discovery is accomplished using Neighbor
        Discovery Protocol [NDP] for IPv6.  NDP uses ICMPv6 message
        types.

     The IPv6 packet header does not include a checksum field.
     Nevertheless, the switch should detect other packet integrity
     issues such as address version and payload length consistencies if
     possible.  When the snooping switch detects such an error, it must
     not include information from the corresponding packet in the MLD
     forwarding table.  The forwarding code should instead drop the
     packet and take further reasonable actions as advocated above.

     The fact that MLDv2 is using ICMPv6 adds new requirements to a
     snooping switch because ICMPv6 has multiple uses aside from MLD.
     This means that it is no longer sufficient to detect that the next-
     header field of the IP header is ICMPv6 in order to identify
     packets relevant for MLD snooping.  A software-based implemention
     which treats all ICMPv6 packets as candidates for MLD snooping
     could easily fill its receive queue and bog down the CPU with
     irrelevant packets.  This would prevent the snooping functionality
     from performing its intended purpose and the non-MLD packets
     destined for other hosts could be lost.

     A solution is either to require that the snooping switch looks
     further into the packets, or to be able to detect a multicast DMAC
     address in conjunction with ICMPv6.  The first solution is
     desirable when a configuration option allows the administrator to
     specify which ICMPv6 message types should trigger a CPU redirect



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 10]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     and which should not.  The reason is that a hardcoding of message
     types is inflexible for the introduction of new message types.  The
     second solution introduces the risk that new protocols which use
     ICMPv6 and multicast DMAC addresses could be incorrectly identified
     as MLD.  It is suggested that solution one is preferred when the
     configuration option is provided.  If this is not the case, then
     the implementor should seriously consider making it available since
     Neighbor Discovery messages would be among those that fall into
     this false positive case and are vital for the operational
     integrity of IPv6 networks.

     The mapping from IP multicast addresses to multicast DMAC addresses
     introduces a potentially enormous overlap.  The structure of an
     IPv6 multicast address is shown in the figure below.  As a result,
     there are 2 ** (112 - 32), or more than 1.2e24 unique DIP addresses
     which map into a single DMAC address in Ethernet and FDDI.  This
     should be compared to 2**5 in the case of IPv4.

     Initial allocation of IPv6 multicast addresses as described in
     [RFC3307], however, cover only the lower 32 bits of group ID.
     While this reduces the problem of address ambiguity to group IDs
     with different flag and scope values for now, it should be noted
     that the allocation policy may change in the future.  Because of
     the potential overlap it is recommended that IPv6 address based
     forwarding is preferred to MAC address based forwarding.

        |   8    |  4 |  4 |             112 bits                  |
        +--------+----+----+---------------------------------------+
        |11111111|flgs|scop|             group ID                  |
        +--------+----+----+---------------------------------------+


4.  IGMP Questionnaire

     As part of this work the following questions were asked both on the
     MAGMA discussion list and sent to known switch vendors implementing
     IGMP snooping.  The individual contributions have been anonymized
     upon request and do not necessarily apply to all of the vendors'
     products.

     The questions were:

     Q1  Does your switches perform IGMP Join aggregation?  In other
         words, are IGMP joins intercepted, absorbed by the
         hardware/software so that only one Join is forwarded to the
         querier?





Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 11]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     Q2  Is multicast forwarding based on MAC addresses?  Would
         datagrams addressed to multicast IP addresses 224.1.2.3 and
         239.129.2.3 be forwarded on the same ports-groups?

     Q3  Is it possible to forward multicast datagrams based on IP
         addresses (not routed)? In other words, could 224.1.2.3 and
         239.129.2.3 be forwarded on different port-groups with
         unaltered TTL?

     Q4  Are multicast datagrams within the range 224.0.0.1 to
         224.0.0.255 forwarded on all ports whether or not IGMP Joins
         have been sent?

     Q5  Are multicast frames within the MAC address range
         01:00:5E:00:00:01 to 01:00:5E:00:00:FF forwarded on all ports
         whether or not IGMP joins have been sent?

     Q6  Does your switch support forwarding to ports on which IP
         multicast routers are attached in addition to the ports where
         IGMP Joins have been received?

     Q7  Is your IGMP snooping functionality fully implemented in
         hardware?

     Q8  Is your IGMP snooping functionality partly software
         implemented?

     Q9  Can topology changes (for example spanning tree configuration
         changes) be detected by the IGMP snooping functionality so that
         for example new queries can be sent or tables can be updated to
         ensure robustness?




















Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 12]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     The answers were:


          ---------------------------+-----------------------+
                                     |     Switch Vendor     |
          ---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                                     | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
          ---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
          Q1 Join aggregation        | x | x | x |   | x | x |
          Q2 Layer-2 forwarding      | x | x | x | x |(1)|   |
          Q3 Layer-3 forwarding      |(1)|   |(1)|   |(1)| x |
          Q4 224.0.0.X aware         |(1)| x |(1)|(2)| x | x |
          Q5 01:00:5e:00:00:XX aware | x | x | x |(2)| x | x |
          Q6 Mcast router list       | x | x | x | x | x | x |
          Q7 Hardware implemented    |   |   |   |   |   |   |
          Q8 Software assisted       | x | x | x | x | x | x |
          Q9 Topology change aware   | x | x | x | x |   |(2)|
          ---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                    x  Means that the answer was Yes.
      (1) In some products (typically high-end) Yes; in others No.
        (2) Not at the time that the questionnaire was received
                      but expected in the near future.



Revision History

     [To RFC Editor: This section is to be removed at publication time]

     This section, while incomplete, is provided as a convenience to the
     working group members.  It will be removed when the document is
     released in its final form.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-10.txt: October 2003

          The changes in this version are the result of the IESG review.

          Substantial comments

               The security considerations section was found a little
               too brief. It has now been extended.

          Editorial Changes

               Removed reference RFC2375, using RFC3307 instead.  New
               author address information.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-09.txt: August 2003



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 13]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


          The changes in this version are the result of the AD review
          following the WG chair review.

          Substantial comments

               There were no substantial technical comments, but a list
               of suggested wordings and clarifications to improve the
               readability and RFC conformance of the draft.

               Reference in Abstract removed.  Improved wording in
               Introduction.

               Improved wording in recommendations section, clarified
               integrity checking for IPv6, removed security issues
               which were really IGMP/MLD security issues.

          Editorial Changes

               Author information changes, TOC added, fixed a wrong
               indentation following section 5.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-08.txt: June 2003

          The changes in this version are the result of the WG chair
          review following the second WG last call. The last call itself
          did not result in further comments.

          Substantial comments

               Requirements have now been replaced with Recommendations
               throughout the draft, which is more appropriate for an
               Informational draft.

               Clarifications regarding the overloading of the IGMP
               query message in section 2.1.1.

               Clarification regarding the data forwarding in the case
               of INCLUDE/EXCLUDE filters.

               More detail added on the special case of Source IP
               address 0.0.0.0.

          Editorial Changes

               Moved Data Forwarding recommendation up as first bullet
               as it really is the main recommendation.

               Added a more suitable reference for the Thaler briefing



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 14]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


               at the 56'th IETF meeting. Hopefully it will become a
               valid link sometime soon.

               Moved reference to RFC2375 to the Informative section.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-07.txt: May 2003

          The current version reflects comments made at the 56'th IETF
          meeting and from the previous WG last call. The majority of
          changes appear in sections 2.1 and 2.2, and even the changes
          here are in reality not substantial.

          Substantial comments

               Section 2.1.1.(4): Changed wording for IGMP forwarding
               section on when spoofing of General Queries should occur.
               Added description of how to avoid IGMP version
               incompatibility problems when doing said spoofing.

               Section 2.1.2.(3): Clarification of incompatibility
               problems in mixed IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 networks. Added
               recommendation for switches to implement some level of
               IGMPv3 Join recognition to reduce these problems.

               Section 2.2: Advice following the briefing [IETF56], that
               in some cases disabling IGMP snooping functionality is
               the only 'solution'

               Section 6, IPv6 Considerations: added descriptions of
               behavior involving the IPv6 version of the null IP Source
               Address (to parallel the IPv4 behaviors).

               Added reference to [IGMPv3] in stead of [PROXY] for group
               membership maintenance and timeout.

          Editorial Changes

               Really minor stuff such as change of authors email
               address, addition of references, draft name increment and
               date changes.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-06.txt: March 2003

          Changes in response to comments made during WG last call and
          assessment by the WG chairs:

          Substantial comments




Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 15]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


               Clarification in IGMP forwarding section on the
               acceptance of membership reports with source IP address
               0.0.0.0 as being a switch recommendation.

               Section 2.1.1.(4): Allow the router port to be excluded
               from the General Query messages

               Section 2.1.1.(6): Replace description of timing out
               older entries with a reference to IGMP/MLD Proxying.

               Section 2.1.2.(3): Replaced description of timeout
               mechanism with a reference to IGMP/MLD.

               Section 2.1.2.(4)  Expanded rationale to discourage
               leaking info between IPv4 and IPv6 groups.

               Section 3: more strongly encourage the use of a
               configuration option for selection of ICMPv6 message
               types.

          Editorial comments.

               Hyphenation problem resolved for groff by setting then ms
               HY register to zero, disabling all forms for the entire
               document
                (".hy 0" and ".nr" worked only as far as the following
               ms macro).

               Sections moved around - again - to comply with
               rfc2223bis-03 draft. Added copyright notice after memo
               status. Removed table of contents as the draft is fairly
               short. Corrected  a reference typo.

               Section 2.1.2.(3): Requirement and rationale broken into
               separate paragraphs.

               Added references to other IPv6 encapsulation documents,

               Corrected estimates for MAC address collisions for
               Ethernet and FDDI: both specification take the low-order
               four (not six) bytes from the IPv6 group addresses.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-05.txt: January 2003

          Changes in wording of IGMP forwarding rule 6) and Data
          forwarding rule 7).  Corrections in the references section.

          Apart from above, no substantial changes has occured in the



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 16]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


          document.  Several editorial changes, however, have been made
          to comply with the rfc editors requirements:

          References splitted in normative and informative sections,
          other related references added.

          Abstract shortened.

          Changed all occurances of MUST, MAY etc. to lowercase to
          reflect that this is not a standards track document.

          Sections moved around so they appear in the required order.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-04.txt: November 2002

          Editorial changes only.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-03.txt: October 2002

          IGMP Forwarding rules:
               Add references to and become consistant with the current
               IGMP proxy draft,

               Unrecognized IGMP packets should not be ignored because
               "mbz" fields are not zero since packets from future
               versions are expected to maintain consistency.

               Corrections related to IGMP Querier election process.

               Add clarification to how lists of router ports may be
               assembled.

          Data Forwarding rules:
               Added discussion of the problems for different IGMP
               environments in choosing whether to flood or to prune
               unregistered multicasts.

               Added refinements for how to handle NON-IPv4 multicasts,
               to keep IGMP-snooping functionality from interfering with
               IPv6 and other multicast traffic.  Any filtering for non-
               IPv4 multicasts should be based on bridge behavior and
               not IGMP snooping behavior.

          IGMP snooping related problems:
               Fixed description of interoperability issues in
               environments with v3 routers and hosts, and v2 snooping
               switches.




Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 17]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


               Added discussion of the IGMPv3 "include source" and
               "exclude source" options, and the inability to support
               them on shared segments.

          IPv6 Considerations:
               Clarifications regarding address ranges FF00::, FF01::
               and all hosts FF02::1 in relation to data forwarding.


     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-02.txt: June 2002

          Status section removes document history; moved into this
          section instead.

          Introduction restores text from the -00 revision that
          describes snooping and its goals

          IGMP flooding rules eased, allowing management option to
          broaden beyond "routers only".

          Removed a should/MAY inconsistancy between IPv4 Forwarding and
          IPv6 processing of checksums.

          IGMP Forwarding Rules: clarify text describing processing of
          non-zero reserved fields.

          Data Forwarding Rules, item 3 is changed from "MUST forward to
          all ports" to "MAY"; item 4 default changes from "MUST" to
          "should use network addresses".

          Added two sets of additional responses to the questionnaire
          and text indicating that responses don't cover all products.

          Removed (commented out) description of IPR issues: IESG is
          aware of them.

     draft-ietf-magma-snoop-01.txt: January 2002

          Extensive restructuring of the original text.


     draft-ietf-idmr-snoop-01.txt:  2001

          Added several descriptions of cases where IGMP snooping
          implementations face problems.  Also added several network
          topology figures.

     draft-ietf-idmr-snoop-00.txt: 2001



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 18]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


          Initial snooping draft.  An overview of IGMP snooping and the
          problems to be solved.

5.  References


5.1.  Normative References


     [BRIDGE]     IEEE 802.1D, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges"

     [IGMPv3]     Cain, B., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
                  3", RFC3376, October 2002.

     [IPV6-1394]  Fujisawa, K. and Onoe, A., "Transmission of IPv6
                  Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks", RFC3146, October
                  2001.

     [IPV6-ETHER] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
                  Ethernet Networks", RFC2464, December 1998.

     [IPV6-FDDI]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI
                  Networks", RFC2467, December 1998.

     [IPV6-TOKEN] Crawford, M., Narten, T. and Thomas, S., "Transmission
                  of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks", RFC2470,
                  December 1998.

     [MLD]        Deering, S., Fenner, B. and Haberman, B.  "Multicast
                  Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC2710, October
                  1999.

     [MLDv2]      Vida, R. and Costa, L., "Multicast Listener Discovery
                  Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", draft-vida-mld-v2-06.txt,
                  November 2002.

     [MRDISC]     Biswas, S., Cain, B. and Haberman, B., "Multicast
                  Router Discovery", draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-10.txt,
                  January 2003.

     [NDP]        Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and Simpson, W., "Neighbor
                  Discovery for IP Version 6 {IPv6)", RFC2461, December
                  1998.

     [PROXY]      Fenner, B.  et al, "IGMP/MLD-based Multicast
                  Forwarding (IGMP/MLD Proxying)", draft-ietf-magma-
                  igmp-proxy-02.txt, November 2002.




Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 19]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     [RFC1112]    Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
                  RFC1112, August 1989.

     [RFC2026]    Bradner, S.  "The Internet Standards Process --
                  Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996.

     [RFC2236]    Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
                  Version 2", RFC2236, November 1997.

     [RFC3307]    Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6
                  Multicast Addresses", RFC3307, August 2002.


5.2.  Informative References


     [IANA]       Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Internet
                  Multicast Addresses",
                  http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

     [CISCO]      Cisco Tech Notes, "Multicast In a Campus Network: CGMP
                  and IGMP snooping",
                  http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/22.html

     [MSOFT]      Microsoft support article Q223136, "Some LAN Switches
                  with IGMP Snooping Stop Forwarding Multicast Packets
                  on RRAS Startup",
                  http://support.microsoft.com/support/articles/Q223/1/36.ASP

     [IETF56]     Briefing by Dave Thaler, Microsoft, presented to the
                  MAGMA WG at the 56'th IETF meeting in San Francisco,
                  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/index.html




6.  Security Considerations

     Under normal network operation, the snooping switch is expected to
     improve overall network performance by limiting the scope of
     multicast flooding to a smaller portion of the local network.  In
     the event of forged IGMP messages, the benefits of using a snooping
     switch might be reduced or eliminated.

     Security considerations for IGMPv3 at the network layer of the
     protocol stack are described in [IGMPv3].  The introduction of IGMP
     snooping functionality does not alter the handling of multicast
     packets by the router as it does not make use of link layer



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 20]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     information.

     There are, however, changes in the way that the IGMP snooping
     switch handles multicast packets within the local network.  In
     particular:

     -   A Query message with a forged source address which is less than
         that of the current Querier could cause snooping switches to
         forward subsequent Membership reports to the wrong network
         interface.  It is for this reason that IGMP Membership Reports
         should be sent to all multicast routers as well as the current
         Querier.

     -   It is possible for a host on the local network to generate
         Current-State Report Messages that would cause the switch to
         incorrectly believe that there is a multicast listener on the
         same network segment as the originator of the forged message.
         This will cause unrequested multicast packets to be forwarded
         into the network segments between the source and the router.
         If the router requires that all Multicast Report messages be
         authenticated as described in section 9.4 of [IGMPv3], it will
         discard the forged Report message from the host inside the
         network in the same way that it would discard one which
         originates from a remote location.  It is worth noting that if
         the router accepts unauthenticated Report messages by virtue of
         them having arrived over a network interface associated with
         the internal network, investigating the affected network
         segments will quickly narrow the search for the source of the
         forged messages.

     -   As noted in [IGMPv3], there is little motivation for an
         attacker to forge a Membership report message since joining a
         group is generally an unprivileged operation.  The sender of
         the forged Membership report will be the only recipient of the
         multicast traffic to that group.  This is in contrast to a
         shared LAN segment (HUB) or network without snooping switches,
         where all other hosts on the same segment would be unable to
         transmit when the network segment is flooding the unwanted
         traffic.

     The worst case result for each attack would remove the performance
     improvements that the snooping functionality would otherwise
     provide.  It would, however, be no worse than that experienced on a
     network with switches that do not perform multicast snooping.







Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 21]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


7.  Acknowledgements

     We would like to thank Martin Bak, Les Bell, Yiqun Cai, Ben Carter,
     Paul Congdon, Toerless Eckert, Bill Fenner, Brian Haberman, Edward
     Hilquist, Hugh Holbrook, Kevin Humphries, Isidor Kouvelas, Pekka
     Savola, Suzuki Shinsuke, Jaff Thomas, Rolland Vida, and Margaret
     Wasserman for comments and suggestions on this document.

     Furthermore, the following companies are acknowledged for their
     contributions: 3Com, Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Enterasys Networks,
     Hewlett-Packard, Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, Thrane & Thrane
     The ordering of these names do not necessarily correspond to the
     column numbers in the response table.


8.  Authors' Addresses

     Morten Jagd Christensen
     Thrane & Thrane
     Lundtoftegaardsvej 93 D
     2800 Lyngby
     DENMARK
     email: mjc@tt.dk

     Karen Kimball
     Hewlett-Packard
     8000 Foothills Blvd.
     Roseville, CA 95747
     USA
     email: karen.kimball@hp.com

     Frank Solensky
     West Ridge Networks
     25 Porter Rd.
     Boxboro, MA 01719
     USA
     email: fsolensky@WestRidgeNetworks.com


9.  IETF IPR Statement

     "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
     intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
     pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
     this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
     might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
     has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on
     the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and



Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 22]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


     standards-related documentation can be found in [RFC-2026].  Copies
     of claims of rights made available for publication and any
     assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
     attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
     of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this
     specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat."


10.  Full Copyright Statement

     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

     This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
     others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
     it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
     published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
     of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
     paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
     However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
     as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
     Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
     purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
     procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
     must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages
     other than English.

     The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
     revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

     This document and the information contained herein is provided on
     an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
     ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
     IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
     THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
     WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

     Acknowledgement:

     Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
     Internet Society.











Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                 [Page 23]


RFC DRAFT   Considerations for IGMP and MLD Snooping SwitchesOctober 2003


                              Table of Contents


     1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2. IGMP Snooping Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1. Forwarding rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.1. IGMP Forwarding Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.2. Data Forwarding Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2. IGMP snooping-related problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3. IPv6 Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4. IGMP Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8. Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9. IETF IPR Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10. Full Copyright Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

     [To RFC Editor: The TOC page is to be moved to page 2 at
     publication time ]

     [To RFC Editor: Page renumbering in TOC and in document will be
     necessary ]

























Christensen, Kimball, Solensky                                  [Page 1]


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