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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

MBONED                                                        M. McBride
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                               O. Komolafe
Expires: January 24, 2020                                Arista Networks
                                                           July 23, 2019


                 Multicast in the Data Center Overview
                     draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-07

Abstract

   The volume and importance of one-to-many traffic patterns in data
   centers is likely to increase significantly in the future.  Reasons
   for this increase are discussed and then attention is paid to the
   manner in which this traffic pattern may be judiously handled in data
   centers.  The intuitive solution of deploying conventional IP
   multicast within data centers is explored and evaluated.  Thereafter,
   a number of emerging innovative approaches are described before a
   number of recommendations are made.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 24, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Reasons for increasing one-to-many traffic patterns . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Overlays  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Handling one-to-many traffic using conventional multicast . .   7
     3.1.  Layer 3 multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Layer 2 multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Example use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Advantages and disadvantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Alternative options for handling one-to-many traffic  . . . .  10
     4.1.  Minimizing traffic volumes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Head end replication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Programmable Forwarding Planes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  BIER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.5.  Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   The volume and importance of one-to-many traffic patterns in data
   centers is likely to increase significantly in the future.  Reasons
   for this increase include the nature of the traffic generated by
   applications hosted in the data center, the need to handle broadcast,
   unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic within the overlay
   technologies used to support multi-tenancy at scale, and the use of
   certain protocols that traditionally require one-to-many control
   message exchanges.

   These trends, allied with the expectation that future highly
   virtualized large-scale data centers must support communication
   between potentially thousands of participants, may lead to the



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   natural assumption that IP multicast will be widely used in data
   centers, specifically given the bandwidth savings it potentially
   offers.  However, such an assumption would be wrong.  In fact, there
   is widespread reluctance to enable conventional IP multicast in data
   centers for a number of reasons, mostly pertaining to concerns about
   its scalability and reliability.

   This draft discusses some of the main drivers for the increasing
   volume and importance of one-to-many traffic patterns in data
   centers.  Thereafter, the manner in which conventional IP multicast
   may be used to handle this traffic pattern is discussed and some of
   the associated challenges highlighted.  Following this discussion, a
   number of alternative emerging approaches are introduced, before
   concluding by discussing key trends and making a number of
   recommendations.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

2.  Reasons for increasing one-to-many traffic patterns

2.1.  Applications

   Key trends suggest that the nature of the applications likely to
   dominate future highly-virtualized multi-tenant data centers will
   produce large volumes of one-to-many traffic.  For example, it is
   well-known that traffic flows in data centers have evolved from being
   predominantly North-South (e.g. client-server) to predominantly East-
   West (e.g.  distributed computation).  This change has led to the
   consensus that topologies such as the Leaf/Spine, that are easier to
   scale in the East-West direction, are better suited to the data
   center of the future.  This increase in East-West traffic flows
   results from VMs often having to exchange numerous messages between
   themselves as part of executing a specific workload.  For example, a
   computational workload could require data, or an executable, to be
   disseminated to workers distributed throughout the data center which
   may be subsequently polled for status updates.  The emergence of such
   applications means there is likely to be an increase in one-to-many
   traffic flows with the increasing dominance of East-West traffic.

   The TV broadcast industry is another potential future source of
   applications with one-to-many traffic patterns in data centers.  The
   requirement for robustness, stability and predicability has meant the
   TV broadcast industry has traditionally used TV-specific protocols,
   infrastructure and technologies for transmitting video signals



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   between end points such as cameras, monitors, mixers, graphics
   devices and video servers.  However, the growing cost and complexity
   of supporting this approach, especially as the bit rates of the video
   signals increase due to demand for formats such as 4K-UHD and 8K-UHD,
   means there is a consensus that the TV broadcast industry will
   transition from industry-specific transmission formats (e.g.  SDI,
   HD-SDI) over TV-specific infrastructure to using IP-based
   infrastructure.  The development of pertinent standards by the
   Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE)
   [SMPTE2110], along with the increasing performance of IP routers,
   means this transition is gathering pace.  A possible outcome of this
   transition will be the building of IP data centers in broadcast
   plants.  Traffic flows in the broadcast industry are frequently one-
   to-many and so if IP data centers are deployed in broadcast plants,
   it is imperative that this traffic pattern is supported efficiently
   in that infrastructure.  In fact, a pivotal consideration for
   broadcasters considering transitioning to IP is the manner in which
   these one-to-many traffic flows will be managed and monitored in a
   data center with an IP fabric.

   One of the few success stories in using conventional IP multicast has
   been for disseminating market trading data.  For example, IP
   multicast is commonly used today to deliver stock quotes from stock
   exchanges to financial service providers and then to the stock
   analysts or brokerages.  It is essential that the network
   infrastructure delivers very low latency and high throughout,
   especially given the proliferation of automated and algorithmic
   trading which means stock analysts or brokerages may gain an edge on
   competitors simply by receiving an update a few milliseconds earlier.
   As would be expected, in such deployments reliability is critical.
   The network must be designed with no single point of failure and in
   such a way that it can respond in a deterministic manner to failure.
   Typically, redundant servers (in a primary/backup or live-live mode)
   send multicast streams into the network, with diverse paths being
   used across the network.  The stock exchange generating the one-to-
   many traffic and stock analysts/brokerage that receive the traffic
   will typically have their own data centers.  Therefore, the manner in
   which one-to-many traffic patterns are handled in these data centers
   are extremely important, especially given the requirements and
   constraints mentioned.

   Another reason for the growing volume of one-to-many traffic patterns
   in modern data centers is the increasing adoption of streaming
   telemetry.  This transition is motivated by the observation that
   traditional poll-based approaches for monitoring network devices are
   usually inadequate in modern data centers.  These approaches
   typically suffer from poor scalability, extensibility and
   responsiveness.  In contrast, in streaming telemetry, network devices



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   in the data center stream highly-granular real-time updates to a
   telemetry collector/database.  This collector then collates,
   normalizes and encodes this data for convenient consumption by
   monitoring applications.  The montoring applications can subscribe to
   the notifications of interest, allowing them to gain insight into
   pertinent state and performance metrics.  Thus, the traffic flows
   associated with streaming telemetry are typically many-to-one between
   the network devices and the telemetry collector and then one-to-many
   from the collector to the monitoring applications.

   The use of publish and subscribe applications is growing within data
   centers, contributing to the rising volume of one-to-many traffic
   flows.  Such applications are attractive as they provide a robust
   low-latency asynchronous messaging service, allowing senders to be
   decoupled from receivers.  The usual approach is for a publisher to
   create and transmit a message to a specific topic.  The publish and
   subscribe application will retain the message and ensure it is
   delivered to all subscribers to that topic.  The flexibility in the
   number of publishers and subscribers to a specific topic means such
   applications cater for one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-one
   traffic patterns.

2.2.  Overlays

   Another key contributor to the rise in one-to-many traffic patterns
   is the proposed architecture for supporting large-scale multi-tenancy
   in highly virtualized data centers [RFC8014].  In this architecture,
   a tenant's VMs are distributed across the data center and are
   connected by a virtual network known as the overlay network.  A
   number of different technologies have been proposed for realizing the
   overlay network, including VXLAN [RFC7348], VXLAN-GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-
   vxlan-gpe], NVGRE [RFC7637] and GENEVE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve].  The
   often fervent and arguably partisan debate about the relative merits
   of these overlay technologies belies the fact that, conceptually, it
   may be said that these overlays mainly simply provide a means to
   encapsulate and tunnel Ethernet frames from the VMs over the data
   center IP fabric, thus emulating a Layer 2 segment between the VMs.
   Consequently, the VMs believe and behave as if they are connected to
   the tenant's other VMs by a conventional Layer 2 segment, regardless
   of their physical location within the data center.

   Naturally, in a Layer 2 segment, point to multi-point traffic can
   result from handling BUM (broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast)
   traffic.  And, compounding this issue within data centers, since the
   tenant's VMs attached to the emulated segment may be dispersed
   throughout the data center, the BUM traffic may need to traverse the
   data center fabric.




McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   Hence, regardless of the overlay technology used, due consideration
   must be given to handling BUM traffic, forcing the data center
   operator to pay attention to the manner in which one-to-many
   communication is handled within the data center.  And this
   consideration is likely to become increasingly important with the
   anticipated rise in the number and importance of overlays.  In fact,
   it may be asserted that the manner in which one-to-many
   communications arising from overlays is handled is pivotal to the
   performance and stability of the entire data center network.

2.3.  Protocols

   Conventionally, some key networking protocols used in data centers
   require one-to-many communications for control messages.  Thus, the
   data center operator must pay due attention to how these control
   message exchanges are supported.

   For example, ARP [RFC0826] and ND [RFC4861] use broadcast and
   multicast messages within IPv4 and IPv6 networks respectively to
   discover MAC address to IP address mappings.  Furthermore, when these
   protocols are running within an overlay network, it essential to
   ensure the messages are delivered to all the hosts on the emulated
   Layer 2 segment, regardless of physical location within the data
   center.  The challenges associated with optimally delivering ARP and
   ND messages in data centers has attracted lots of attention
   [RFC6820].

   Another example of a protocol that may neccessitate having one-to-
   many traffic flows in the data center is IGMP [RFC2236], [RFC3376].
   If the VMs attached to the Layer 2 segment wish to join a multicast
   group they must send IGMP reports in response to queries from the
   querier.  As these devices could be located at different locations
   within the data center, there is the somewhat ironic prospect of IGMP
   itself leading to an increase in the volume of one-to-many
   communications in the data center.

2.4.  Summary

   Section 2.1, Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 have discussed how the
   trends in the types of applications, the overlay technologies used
   and some of the essential networking protocols results in an increase
   in the volume of one-to-many traffic patterns in modern highly-
   virtualized data centers.  Section 3 explores how such traffic flows
   may be handled using conventional IP multicast.







McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


3.  Handling one-to-many traffic using conventional multicast

   Faced with ever increasing volumes of one-to-many traffic flows for
   the reasons presented in Section 2, arguably the intuitive initial
   course of action for a data center operator is to explore if and how
   conventional IP multicast could be deployed within the data center.
   This section introduces the key protocols, discusses some example use
   cases where they are deployed in data centers and discusses some of
   the advantages and disadvantages of such deployments.

3.1.  Layer 3 multicast

   PIM is the most widely deployed multicast routing protocol and so,
   unsurprisingly, is the primary multicast routing protocol considered
   for use in the data center.  There are three potential popular modes
   of PIM that may be used: PIM-SM [RFC4601], PIM-SSM [RFC4607] or PIM-
   BIDIR [RFC5015].  It may be said that these different modes of PIM
   tradeoff the optimality of the multicast forwarding tree for the
   amount of multicast forwarding state that must be maintained at
   routers.  SSM provides the most efficient forwarding between sources
   and receivers and thus is most suitable for applications with one-to-
   many traffic patterns.  State is built and maintained for each (S,G)
   flow.  Thus, the amount of multicast forwarding state held by routers
   in the data center is proportional to the number of sources and
   groups.  At the other end of the spectrum, BIDIR is the most
   efficient shared tree solution as one tree is built for all flows,
   therefore minimizing the amount of state.  This state reduction is at
   the expense of optimal forwarding path between sources and receivers.
   This use of a shared tree makes BIDIR particularly well-suited for
   applications with many-to-many traffic patterns, given that the
   amount of state is uncorrelated to the number of sources.  SSM and
   BIDIR are optimizations of PIM-SM.  PIM-SM is the most widely
   deployed multicast routing protocol.  PIM-SM can also be the most
   complex.  PIM-SM relies upon a RP (Rendezvous Point) to set up the
   multicast tree and subsequently there is the option of switching to
   the SPT (shortest path tree), similar to SSM, or staying on the
   shared tree, similar to BIDIR.

3.2.  Layer 2 multicast

   With IPv4 unicast address resolution, the translation of an IP
   address to a MAC address is done dynamically by ARP.  With multicast
   address resolution, the mapping from a multicast IPv4 address to a
   multicast MAC address is done by assigning the low-order 23 bits of
   the multicast IPv4 address to fill the low-order 23 bits of the
   multicast MAC address.  Each IPv4 multicast address has 28 unique
   bits (the multicast address range is 224.0.0.0/12) therefore mapping
   a multicast IP address to a MAC address ignores 5 bits of the IP



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   address.  Hence, groups of 32 multicast IP addresses are mapped to
   the same MAC address.  And so a multicast MAC address cannot be
   uniquely mapped to a multicast IPv4 address.  Therefore, IPv4
   multicast addresses must be chosen judiciously in order to avoid
   unneccessary address aliasing.  When sending IPv6 multicast packets
   on an Ethernet link, the corresponding destination MAC address is a
   direct mapping of the last 32 bits of the 128 bit IPv6 multicast
   address into the 48 bit MAC address.  It is possible for more than
   one IPv6 multicast address to map to the same 48 bit MAC address.

   The default behaviour of many hosts (and, in fact, routers) is to
   block multicast traffic.  Consequently, when a host wishes to join an
   IPv4 multicast group, it sends an IGMP [RFC2236], [RFC3376] report to
   the router attached to the Layer 2 segment and also it instructs its
   data link layer to receive Ethernet frames that match the
   corresponding MAC address.  The data link layer filters the frames,
   passing those with matching destination addresses to the IP module.
   Similarly, hosts simply hand the multicast packet for transmission to
   the data link layer which would add the Layer 2 encapsulation, using
   the MAC address derived in the manner previously discussed.

   When this Ethernet frame with a multicast MAC address is received by
   a switch configured to forward multicast traffic, the default
   behaviour is to flood it to all the ports in the Layer 2 segment.
   Clearly there may not be a receiver for this multicast group present
   on each port and IGMP snooping is used to avoid sending the frame out
   of ports without receivers.

   A switch running IGMP snooping listens to the IGMP messages exchanged
   between hosts and the router in order to identify which ports have
   active receivers for a specific multicast group, allowing the
   forwarding of multicast frames to be suitably constrained.  Normally,
   the multicast router will generate IGMP queries to which the hosts
   send IGMP reports in response.  However, number of optimizations in
   which a switch generates IGMP queries (and so appears to be the
   router from the hosts' perspective) and/or generates IGMP reports
   (and so appears to be hosts from the router's perspectve) are
   commonly used to improve the performance by reducing the amount of
   state maintained at the router, suppressing superfluous IGMP messages
   and improving responsivenss when hosts join/leave the group.

   Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC 2710] [RFC 3810] is used by
   IPv6 routers for discovering multicast listeners on a directly
   attached link, performing a similar function to IGMP in IPv4
   networks.  MLDv1 [RFC 2710] is similar to IGMPv2 and MLDv2 [RFC 3810]
   [RFC 4604] similar to IGMPv3.  However, in contrast to IGMP, MLD does
   not send its own distinct protocol messages.  Rather, MLD is a
   subprotocol of ICMPv6 [RFC 4443] and so MLD messages are a subset of



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   ICMPv6 messages.  MLD snooping works similarly to IGMP snooping,
   described earlier.

3.3.  Example use cases

   A use case where PIM and IGMP are currently used in data centers is
   to support multicast in VXLAN deployments.  In the original VXLAN
   specification [RFC7348], a data-driven flood and learn control plane
   was proposed, requiring the data center IP fabric to support
   multicast routing.  A multicast group is associated with each virtual
   network, each uniquely identified by its VXLAN network identifiers
   (VNI).  VXLAN tunnel endpoints (VTEPs), typically located in the
   hypervisor or ToR switch, with local VMs that belong to this VNI
   would join the multicast group and use it for the exchange of BUM
   traffic with the other VTEPs.  Essentially, the VTEP would
   encapsulate any BUM traffic from attached VMs in an IP multicast
   packet, whose destination address is the associated multicast group
   address, and transmit the packet to the data center fabric.  Thus,
   PIM must be running in the fabric to maintain a multicast
   distribution tree per VNI.

   Alternatively, rather than setting up a multicast distribution tree
   per VNI, a tree can be set up whenever hosts within the VNI wish to
   exchange multicast traffic.  For example, whenever a VTEP receives an
   IGMP report from a locally connected host, it would translate this
   into a PIM join message which will be propagated into the IP fabric.
   In order to ensure this join message is sent to the IP fabric rather
   than over the VXLAN interface (since the VTEP will have a route back
   to the source of the multicast packet over the VXLAN interface and so
   would naturally attempt to send the join over this interface) a more
   specific route back to the source over the IP fabric must be
   configured.  In this approach PIM must be configured on the SVIs
   associated with the VXLAN interface.

   Another use case of PIM and IGMP in data centers is when IPTV servers
   use multicast to deliver content from the data center to end users.
   IPTV is typically a one to many application where the hosts are
   configured for IGMPv3, the switches are configured with IGMP
   snooping, and the routers are running PIM-SSM mode.  Often redundant
   servers send multicast streams into the network and the network is
   forwards the data across diverse paths.

3.4.  Advantages and disadvantages

   Arguably the biggest advantage of using PIM and IGMP to support one-
   to-many communication in data centers is that these protocols are
   relatively mature.  Consequently, PIM is available in most routers
   and IGMP is supported by most hosts and routers.  As such, no



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   specialized hardware or relatively immature software is involved in
   using these protocols in data centers.  Furthermore, the maturity of
   these protocols means their behaviour and performance in operational
   networks is well-understood, with widely available best-practices and
   deployment guides for optimizing their performance.  For these
   reasons, PIM and IGMP have been used successfully for supporting one-
   to-many traffic flows within modern data centers, as discussed
   earlier.

   However, somewhat ironically, the relative disadvantages of PIM and
   IGMP usage in data centers also stem mostly from their maturity.
   Specifically, these protocols were standardized and implemented long
   before the highly-virtualized multi-tenant data centers of today
   existed.  Consequently, PIM and IGMP are neither optimally placed to
   deal with the requirements of one-to-many communication in modern
   data centers nor to exploit idiosyncrasies of data centers.  For
   example, there may be thousands of VMs participating in a multicast
   session, with some of these VMs migrating to servers within the data
   center, new VMs being continually spun up and wishing to join the
   sessions while all the time other VMs are leaving.  In such a
   scenario, the churn in the PIM and IGMP state machines, the volume of
   control messages they would generate and the amount of state they
   would necessitate within routers, especially if they were deployed
   naively, would be untenable.  Furthermore, PIM is a relatively
   complex protocol.  As such, PIM can be challenging to debug even in
   significantly more benign deployments than those envisaged for future
   data centers, a fact that has evidently had a dissuasive effect on
   data center operators considering enabling it within the IP fabric.

4.  Alternative options for handling one-to-many traffic

   Section 2 has shown that there is likely to be an increasing amount
   one-to-many communications in data centers for multiple reasons.  And
   Section 3 has discussed how conventional multicast may be used to
   handle this traffic, presenting some of the associated advantages and
   disadvantages.  Unsurprisingly, as discussed in the remainder of
   Section 4, there are a number of alternative options of handling this
   traffic pattern in data centers.  Critically, it should be noted that
   many of these techniques are not mutually-exclusive; in fact many
   deployments involve a combination of more than one of these
   techniques.  Furthermore, as will be shown, introducing a centralized
   controller or a distributed control plane, typically makes these
   techniques more potent.








McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


4.1.  Minimizing traffic volumes

   If handling one-to-many traffic flows in data centers is considered
   onerous, then arguably the most intuitive solution is to aim to
   minimize the volume of said traffic.

   It was previously mentioned in Section 2 that the three main
   contributors to one-to-many traffic in data centers are applications,
   overlays and protocols.  Typically the applications running on VMs
   are outside the control of the data center operator and thus,
   relatively speaking, little can be done about the volume of one-to-
   many traffic generated by applications.  Luckily, there is more scope
   for attempting to reduce the volume of such traffic generated by
   overlays and protocols.  (And often by protocols within overlays.)
   This reduction is possible by exploiting certain characteristics of
   data center networks such as a fixed and regular topology, single
   administrative control, consistent hardware and software, well-known
   overlay encapsulation endpoints and systematic IP address allocation.

   A way of minimizing the amount of one-to-many traffic that traverses
   the data center fabric is to use a centralized controller.  For
   example, whenever a new VM is instantiated, the hypervisor or
   encapsulation endpoint can notify a centralized controller of this
   new MAC address, the associated virtual network, IP address etc.  The
   controller could subsequently distribute this information to every
   encapsulation endpoint.  Consequently, when any endpoint receives an
   ARP request from a locally attached VM, it could simply consult its
   local copy of the information distributed by the controller and
   reply.  Thus, the ARP request is suppressed and does not result in
   one-to-many traffic traversing the data center IP fabric.

   Alternatively, the functionality supported by the controller can
   realized by a distributed control plane.  BGP-EVPN [RFC7432, RFC8365]
   is the most popular control plane used in data centers.  Typically,
   the encapsulation endpoints will exchange pertinent information with
   each other by all peering with a BGP route reflector (RR).  Thus,
   information such as local MAC addresses, MAC to IP address mapping,
   virtual networks identifiers, IP prefixes, and local IGMP group
   membership can be disseminated.  Consequently, for example, ARP
   requests from local VMs can be suppressed by the encapsulation
   endpoint using the information learnt from the control plane about
   the MAC to IP mappings at remote peers.  In a similar fashion,
   encapsulation endpoints can use information gleaned from the BGP-EVPN
   messages to proxy for both IGMP reports and queries for the attached
   VMs, thus obviating the need to transmit IGMP messages across the
   data center fabric.





McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


4.2.  Head end replication

   A popular option for handling one-to-many traffic patterns in data
   centers is head end replication (HER).  HER means the traffic is
   duplicated and sent to each end point individually using conventional
   IP unicast.  Obvious disadvantages of HER include traffic duplication
   and the additional processing burden on the head end.  Nevertheless,
   HER is especially attractive when overlays are in use as the
   replication can be carried out by the hypervisor or encapsulation end
   point.  Consequently, the VMs and IP fabric are unmodified and
   unaware of how the traffic is delivered to the multiple end points.
   Additionally, it is possible to use a number of approaches for
   constructing and disseminating the list of which endpoints should
   receive what traffic and so on.

   For example, the reluctance of data center operators to enable PIM
   within the data center fabric means VXLAN is often used with HER.
   Thus, BUM traffic from each VNI is replicated and sent using unicast
   to remote VTEPs with VMs in that VNI.  The list of remote VTEPs to
   which the traffic should be sent may be configured manually on the
   VTEP.  Alternatively, the VTEPs may transmit pertinent local state to
   a centralized controller which in turn sends each VTEP the list of
   remote VTEPs for each VNI.  Lastly, HER also works well when a
   distributed control plane is used instead of the centralized
   controller.  Again, BGP-EVPN may be used to distribute the
   information needed to faciliate HER to the VTEPs.

4.3.  Programmable Forwarding Planes

   As discussed in Section 2, one of the main functions of PIM is to
   build and maintain multicast distribution trees.  Such a tree
   indicates the path a specific flow will take through the network.
   Thus, in routers traversed by the flow, the information from PIM is
   ultimately used to create a multicast forwarding entry for the
   specific flow and insert it into the multicast forwarding table.  The
   multicast forwarding table will have entries for each multicast flow
   traversing the router, with the lookup key usually being a
   concantenation of the source and group addresses.  Critically, each
   entry will contain information such as the legal input interface for
   the flow and a list of output interfaces to which matching packets
   should be replicated.

   Viewed in this way, there is nothing remarkable about the multicast
   forwarding state constructed in routers based on the information
   gleaned from PIM.  And, in fact, it is perfectly feasible to build
   such state in the absence of PIM.  Such prospects have been
   significantly enhanced with the increasing popularity and performance
   of network devices with programmable forwarding planes.  These



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   devices are attractive for use in data centers since they are
   amenable to being programmed by a centralized controller.  If such a
   controller has a global view of the sources and receivers for each
   multicast flow (which can be provided by the devices attached to the
   end hosts in the data center communicating with the controller), an
   accurate representation of data center topology (which is usually
   well-known), then it can readily compute the multicast forwarding
   state that must be installed at each router to ensure the one-to-many
   traffic flow is delivered properly to the correct receivers.  All
   that is needed is an API to program the forwarding planes of all the
   network devices that need to handle the flow appropriately.  Such
   APIs do in fact exist and so, unsurprisingly, handling one-to-many
   traffic flows using such an approach is attractive for data centers.

   Being able to program the forwarding plane in this manner offers the
   enticing possibility of introducing novel algorithms and concepts for
   forwarding multicast traffic in data centers.  These schemes
   typically aim to exploit the idiosyncracies of the data center
   network architecture to create ingenious, pithy and elegant encodings
   of the information needed to facilitate multicast forwarding.
   Depending on the scheme, this information may be carried in packet
   headers, stored in the multicast forwarding table in routers or a
   combination of both.  The key characterstic is that the terseness of
   the forwarding information means the volume of forwarding state is
   significantly reduced.  Additionally, the overhead associated with
   building and maintaining a multicast forwarding tree has been
   eliminated.  The result of these reductions in the overhead
   associated with multicast forwarding is a significant and impressive
   increase in the effective number of multicast flows that can be
   supported within the data center.

   [Shabaz19] is a good example of such an approach and also presents
   comprehensive discussion of other schemes in the discussion on
   releated work.  Although a number of promising schemes have been
   proposed, no consensus has yet emerged as to which approach is best,
   and in fact what "best" means.  Even if a clear winner were to
   emerge, it faces significant challenges to gain the vendor and
   operator buy-in to ensure it is widely deployed in data centers.

4.4.  BIER

   As discussed in Section 3.4, PIM and IGMP face potential scalability
   challenges when deployed in data centers.  These challenges are
   typically due to the requirement to build and maintain a distribution
   tree and the requirement to hold per-flow state in routers.  Bit
   Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC 8279] is a new multicast
   forwarding paradigm that avoids these two requirements.




McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   When a multicast packet enters a BIER domain, the ingress router,
   known as the Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR), adds a BIER header
   to the packet.  This header contains a bit string in which each bit
   maps to an egress router, known as Bit-Forwarding Egress Router
   (BFER).  If a bit is set, then the packet should be forwarded to the
   associated BFER.  The routers within the BIER domain, Bit-Forwarding
   Routers (BFRs), use the BIER header in the packet and information in
   the Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) to carry out simple bit- wise
   operations to determine how the packet should be replicated optimally
   so it reaches all the appropriate BFERs.

   BIER is deemed to be attractive for facilitating one-to-many
   communications in data centers [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases].  The
   deployment envisioned with overlay networks is that the the
   encapsulation endpoints would be the BFIR.  So knowledge about the
   actual multicast groups does not reside in the data center fabric,
   improving the scalability compared to conventional IP multicast.
   Additionally, a centralized controller or a BGP-EVPN control plane
   may be used with BIER to ensure the BFIR have the required
   information.  A challenge associated with using BIER is that it
   requires changes to the forwarding behaviour of the routers used in
   the data center IP fabric.

4.5.  Segment Routing

   Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] is a manifestation of the source
   routing paradigm, so called as the path a packet takes through a
   network is determined at the source.  The source encodes this
   information in the packet header as a sequence of instructions.
   These instructions are followed by intermediate routers, ultimately
   resulting in the delivery of the packet to the desired destination.
   In SR, the instructions are known as segments and a number of
   different kinds of segments have been defined.  Each segment has an
   identifier (SID) which is distributed throughout the network by newly
   defined extensions to standard routing protocols.  Thus, using this
   information, sources are able to determine the exact sequence of
   segments to encode into the packet.  The manner in which these
   instructions are encoded depends on the underlying data plane.
   Segment Routing can be applied to the MPLS and IPv6 data planes.  In
   the former, the list of segments is represented by the label stack
   and in the latter it is represented as an IPv6 routing extension
   header.  Advantages of segment routing include the reduction in the
   amount of forwarding state routers need to hold and the removal of
   the need to run a signaling protocol, thus improving the network
   scalability while reducing the operational complexity.

   The advantages of segment routing and the ability to run it over an
   unmodified MPLS data plane means that one of its anticipated use



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   cases is in BGP-based large-scale data centers [RFC7938].  The exact
   manner in which multicast traffic will be handled in SR has not yet
   been standardized, with a number of different options being
   considered.  For example, since with the MPLS data plane, segments
   are simply encoded as a label stack, then the protocols traditionally
   used to create point-to-multipoint LSPs could be reused to allow SR
   to support one-to-many traffic flows.  Alternatively, a special SID
   may be defined for a multicast distribution tree, with a centralized
   controller being used to program routers appropriately to ensure the
   traffic is delivered to the desired destinations, while avoiding the
   costly process of building and maintaining a multicast distribution
   tree.

5.  Conclusions

   As the volume and importance of one-to-many traffic in data centers
   increases, conventional IP multicast is likely to become increasingly
   unattractive for deployment in data centers for a number of reasons,
   mostly pertaining its relatively poor scalability and inability to
   exploit characteristics of data center network architectures.  Hence,
   even though IGMP/MLD is likely to remain the most popular manner in
   which end hosts signal interest in joining a multicast group, it is
   unlikely that this multicast traffic will be transported over the
   data center IP fabric using a multicast distribution tree built and
   maintained by PIM in the future.  Rather, approaches which exploit
   idiosyncracies of data center network architectures are better placed
   to deliver one-to-many traffic in data centers, especially when
   judiciously combined with a centralized controller and/or a
   distributed control plane, particularly one based on BGP-EVPN.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   No new security considerations result from this document

8.  Acknowledgements

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
              Kumar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Gulko, A., Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C.
              Bestler, "BIER Use Cases", draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-09
              (work in progress), January 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
              Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
              Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
              nvo3-geneve-13 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
              Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
              Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-07 (work
              in progress), April 2019.

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc826>.

   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.

   [RFC4607]  Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
              IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.




McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.

   [RFC6820]  Narten, T., Karir, M., and I. Foo, "Address Resolution
              Problems in Large Data Center Networks", RFC 6820,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6820, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6820>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
              Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
              RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.

   [RFC7938]  Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
              BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.

   [RFC8014]  Black, D., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Lasserre, M., and T.
              Narten, "An Architecture for Data-Center Network
              Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)", RFC 8014,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8014, December 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8014>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.



McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Multicast in the Data Center             July 2019


   [RFC8365]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
              Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
              Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [Shabaz19]
              Shabaz, M., Suresh, L., Rexford, J., Feamster, N.,
              Rottenstreich, O., and M. Hira, "Elmo: Source Routed
              Multicast for Public Clouds", ACM SIGCOMM 2019 Conference
              (SIGCOMM '19) ACM, DOI 10.1145/3341302.3342066, August
              2019.

   [SMPTE2110]
              SMTPE, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers,
              "SMPTE2110 Standards Suite",
              <http://www.smpte.org/st-2110>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mike McBride
   Futurewei

   Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com


   Olufemi Komolafe
   Arista Networks

   Email: femi@arista.com
















McBride & Komolafe      Expires January 24, 2020               [Page 18]


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