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

Versions: (draft-jholland-mboned-driad-amt-discovery) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Mboned                                                        J. Holland
Internet-Draft                                 Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Updates: 7450 (if approved)                             January 25, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 29, 2019


                      DNS Reverse IP AMT Discovery
                draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-00

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 7450 (AMT) by extending the relay discovery
   process to use a new DNS resource record for source-specific AMT
   relay discovery when joining source-specific multicast channels.  A
   multicast sender configures a reverse IP DNS zone with the new
   AMTRELAY RR (defined in this document) to advertise a set of relays
   that can receive and forward multicast traffic from that sender
   inside a unicast AMT tunnel, in order to transit non-multicast-
   capable network segments.

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 July 29, 2019.

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



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.1.  Relays and Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Relay Discovery Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Signaling and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Optimal Relay Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Guidelines for Restarting Discovery . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.4.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.4.2.  Tunnel Stability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.4.3.  Flow Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.4.4.  Relay Loading and Shutdown  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.4.5.  Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery . .  12
       2.4.6.  Connecting to Multiple Relays . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.5.  DNS Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.6.  Waiting for DNS resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   3.  Example Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  Example Receiving Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.1.1.  Tier 3 ISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.1.2.  Small Office  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.2.  Example Sending Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       3.2.1.  Sender-controlled Relays  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       3.2.2.  Provider-controlled Relays  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.  AMTRELAY Resource Record Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.1.  AMTRELAY RRType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.2.  AMTRELAY RData Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       4.2.1.  RData Format - Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       4.2.2.  RData Format - Discovery Optional (D-bit) . . . . . .  21
       4.2.3.  RData Format - Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.2.4.  RData Format - Relay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.3.  AMTRELAY Record Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.3.1.  Representation of AMTRELAY RRs  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       4.3.2.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.1.  Record-spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.2.  Local Override  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.3.  Congestion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  New RRType Request Form  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix B.  Unknown RRType construction  . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   This document defines DNS Reverse IP AMT Discovery (DRIAD), a
   mechanism for AMT gateways to discover AMT relays which are capable
   of forwarding multicast traffic from a known source IP address.

   AMT (Automatic Multicast Tunneling) is defined in [RFC7450], and
   provides a method to transport multicast traffic over a unicast
   tunnel, in order to traverse non-multicast-capable network segments.

   Section 4.1.5 of [RFC7450] explains that relay selection might need
   to depend on the source of the multicast traffic, since a relay must
   be able to receive multicast traffic from the desired source in order
   to forward it.

   That section suggests DNS-based queries as a possible solution.
   DRIAD is a DNS-based solution, as suggested there.  This solution
   also addresses the relay discovery issues in the "Disadvantages"
   lists in Section 3.3 of [RFC8313] and Section 3.4 of [RFC8313].

   The goal for DRIAD is to enable multicast connectivity between
   separate multicast-enabled networks when neither the sending nor the
   receiving network is connected to a multicast-enabled backbone,
   without pre-configuring any peering arrangement between the networks.

   This document updates Section 5.2.3.4 of [RFC7450] by adding a new
   extension to the relay discovery procedure.

1.1.  Background

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basic DNS concepts
   described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], and the subsequent documents that
   update them, particularly [RFC2181].

   The reader is also assumed to be familiar with the concepts and
   terminology regarding source-specific multicast as described in
   [RFC4607] and the use of IGMPv3 [RFC3376] and MLDv2 [RFC3810] for
   group management of source-specific multicast channels, as described
   in [RFC4604].





Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   The reader should also be familiar with AMT, particularly the
   terminology listed in Section 3.2 of [RFC7450] and Section 3.3 of
   [RFC7450].

1.2.  Terminology

1.2.1.  Relays and Gateways

   When reading this document, it's especially helpful to recall that
   once an AMT tunnel is established, the relay receives native
   multicast traffic and sends unicast tunnel-encapsulated traffic to
   the gateway, and the gateway receives the tunnel-encapsulated
   packets, decapsulates them, and forwards them as native multicast
   packets, as illustrated in Figure 1.

    Multicast  +-----------+  Unicast  +-------------+  Multicast
   >---------> | AMT relay | >=======> | AMT gateway | >--------->
               +-----------+           +-------------+

                     Figure 1: AMT Tunnel Illustration

1.2.2.  Definitions





























Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
   |       Term | Definition                                           |
   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
   |      (S,G) | A source-specific multicast channel, as described in |
   |            | [RFC4607]. A pair of IP addresses with a source host |
   |            | IP and destination group IP.                         |
   |            |                                                      |
   | downstream | Further from the source of traffic.                  |
   |            |                                                      |
   |       FQDN | Fully Qualified Domain Name, as described in         |
   |            | [RFC8499]                                            |
   |            |                                                      |
   |    gateway | An AMT gateway, as described in [RFC7450]            |
   |            |                                                      |
   |     L flag | The "Limit" flag described in Section 5.1.1.4 of     |
   |            | [RFC7450]                                            |
   |            |                                                      |
   |      relay | An AMT relay, as described in [RFC7450]              |
   |            |                                                      |
   |        RPF | Reverse Path Forwarding, as described in [RFC5110]   |
   |            |                                                      |
   |         RR | A DNS Resource Record, as described in [RFC1034]     |
   |            |                                                      |
   |     RRType | A DNS Resource Record Type, as described in          |
   |            | [RFC1034]                                            |
   |            |                                                      |
   |        SSM | Source-specific multicast, as described in [RFC4607] |
   |            |                                                      |
   |   upstream | Closer to the source of traffic.                     |
   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Relay Discovery Operation

2.1.  Overview

   The AMTRELAY resource record (RR) defined in this document is used to
   publish the IP address or domain name of an AMT relay that can
   receive, encapsulate, and forward multicast traffic from a particular
   sender.






Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   The sender is the owner of the RR, and configures the RR so that it
   contains the address or domain name of an AMT relay that can receive
   multicast IP traffic from that sender.

   This enables AMT gateways in remote networks to discover an AMT relay
   that is capable of forwarding traffic from the sender.  This in turn
   enables those AMT gateways to receive the multicast traffic tunneled
   over a unicast AMT tunnel from those relays, and then to pass the
   multicast packets into networks or applications that are using the
   gateway to subscribe to traffic from that sender.

   This mechanism only works for source-specific multicast (SSM)
   channels.  The source address of the (S,G) is reversed and used as an
   index into one of the reverse mapping trees (in-addr.arpa for IPv4,
   as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035], or ip6.arpa for IPv6, as
   described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3596]).

   This mechanism should be treated as an extension of the AMT relay
   discovery procedure described in section 5.2.3.4 of [RFC7450].  A
   gateway that supports this method of AMT relay discovery SHOULD use
   this method whenever it's performing the relay discovery procedure,
   and the source IP addresses for desired (S,G)s are known to the
   gateway, and conditions match the requirements outlined in
   Section 2.3.

   Some detailed example use cases are provided in Section 3, and other
   applicable example topologies appear in Section 3.3 of [RFC8313],
   Section 3.4 of [RFC8313], and Section 3.5 of [RFC8313].

2.2.  Signaling and Discovery

   This section describes a typical example of the end-to-end process
   for signaling a receiver's join of a SSM channel that relies on an
   AMTRELAY RR.

   The example in Figure 2 contains 2 multicast-enabled networks that
   are both connected to the internet with non-multicast-capable links,
   and which have no direct association with each other.

   A content provider operates a sender, which is a source of multicast
   traffic inside a multicast-capable network.

   An end user who is a customer of the content provider has a
   multicast-capable internet service provider, which operates a
   receiving network that uses an AMT gateway.  The AMT gateway is
   DRIAD-capable.





Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   The content provider provides the user with a receiving application
   that tries to subscribe to at least one (S,G).  This receiving
   application could for example be a file transfer system using FLUTE
   [RFC6726] or a live video stream using RTP [RFC3550], or any other
   application that might subscribe to a SSM channel.

                   +---------------+
                   |    Sender     |
    |    |         | 198.51.100.15 |
    |    |         +---------------+
    |Data|                 |
    |Flow|      Multicast  |
   \|    |/      Network   |
    \    /                 |        5: Propagate RPF for Join(S,G)
     \  /          +---------------+
      \/           |   AMT Relay   |
                   | 203.0.113.15  |
                   +---------------+
                           |        4: Gateway connects to Relay,
                                       sends Join(S,G) over tunnel
                           |
                  Unicast
                   Tunnel  |

       ^                   |        3: --> DNS Query: type=AMTRELAY,
       |                           /         15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.
       |                   |      /    <-- Response:
   Join/Leave       +-------------+          AMTRELAY=203.0.113.15
    Signals         | AMT gateway |
       |            +-------------+
       |                   |        2: Propagate RPF for Join(S,G)
       |        Multicast  |
                 Network   |
                           |        1: Join(S=198.51.100.15, G)
                    +-------------+
                    |   Receiver  |
                    |  (end user) |
                    +-------------+

                         Figure 2: DRIAD Messaging

   In this simple example, the sender IP is 198.51.100.15, and the relay
   IP is 203.0.113.15.

   The content provider has previously configured the DNS zone that
   contains the domain name "15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.", which is the
   reverse lookup domain name for his sender.  The zone file contains an




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   AMTRELAY RR with the Relay's IP address.  (See Section 4.3 for
   details about the AMTRELAY RR format and semantics.)

   The sequence of events depicted in Figure 2 is as follows:

   1.  The end user starts the app, which issues a join to the (S,G):
       (198.51.100.15, 232.252.0.2).

   2.  The join propagates with RPF through the multicast-enabled
       network with PIM [RFC7761] or another multicast routing
       mechanism, until the AMT gateway receives a signal to join the
       (S,G).

   3.  The AMT gateway performs a reverse DNS lookup for the AMTRELAY
       RRType, by sending an AMTRELAY RRType query for the FQDN
       "15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.", using the reverse IP domain name
       for the sender's source IP address (the S from the (S,G)), as
       described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035].

       The DNS resolver for the AMT gateway uses ordinary DNS recursive
       resolution until it has the authoritative result that the content
       provider configured, which informs the AMT gateway that the relay
       address is 203.0.113.15.

   4.  The AMT gateway performs AMT handshakes with the AMT relay as
       described in Section 4 of [RFC7450], then forwards a Membership
       report to the relay indicating subscription to the (S,G).

   5.  The relay propagates the join through its network toward the
       sender, then forwards the appropriate AMT-encapsulated traffic to
       the gateway, which decapsulates and forwards it as native
       multicast through its downstream network to the end user.

2.3.  Optimal Relay Selection

   The reverse source IP DNS query of an AMTRELAY RR is a good way for a
   gateway to discover a relay that is known to the sender.

   However, it is NOT necessarily a good way to discover the best relay
   for that gateway to use, because the RR IP will only provide
   information about relays known to the source.

   If there is an upstream relay in a network that is topologically
   closer to the gateway and able to receive and forward multicast
   traffic from the sender, that relay is better for the gateway to use,
   since more of the network path uses native multicast, allowing more
   chances for packet replication.  But since that relay is not known to
   the sender, it won't be advertised in the sender's reverse IP DNS



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   record.  An example network that illustrates this scenario is
   outlined in Section 3.1.2.

   It's only appropriate for an AMT gateway to discover an AMT relay by
   querying an AMTRELAY RR owned by a sender when all of these
   conditions are met:

   1.  The gateway needs to propagate a join of an (S,G) over AMT,
       because in the gateway's network, no RPF next hop toward the
       source can propagate a native multicast join of the (S,G); and

   2.  The gateway is not already connected to a relay that forwards
       multicast traffic from the source of the (S,G); and

   3.  The gateway is not configured to use a particular IP address for
       AMT discovery, or a relay discovered with that IP is not able to
       forward traffic from the source of the (S,G); and

   4.  The gateway is not able to find an upstream AMT relay with DNS-SD
       [RFC6763], using "_amt._udp" as the Service section of the
       queries, or a relay discovered this way is not able to forward
       traffic from the source of the (S,G)

   When the above conditions are met, the gateway has no path within its
   local network that can receive multicast traffic from the source IP
   of the (S,G).

   In this situation, the best way to find a relay that can forward the
   required traffic is to use information that comes from the operator
   of the sender.  When the sender has configured the AMTRELAY RR
   defined in this document, gateways can use the DRIAD mechanism
   defined in this document to discover the relay information provided
   by the sender.

2.4.  Guidelines for Restarting Discovery

2.4.1.  Overview

   It's expected that gateways deployed in different environments will
   use a variety of heuristics to decide when it's appropriate to
   restart the relay discovery process, in order to meet different
   performance goals (for example, to fulfill different kinds of service
   level agreements).

   The advice in this section should be treated as non-normative
   guidelines to operators and implementors working with AMT systems
   that can use DRIAD as part of the relay discovery process.




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   Section 5.2.3.4.1 of [RFC7450] lists several events that may cause a
   gateway to start or restart the discovery procedure.

   This document provides some updates and recommendations regarding the
   handling of these and similar events.  The events are copied here and
   numbered for easier reference:

   1.  When a gateway pseudo-interface is started (enabled).

   2.  When the gateway wishes to report a group subscription when none
       currently exist.

   3.  Before sending the next Request message in a membership update
       cycle.

   4.  After the gateway fails to receive a response to a Request
       message.

   5.  After the gateway receives a Membership Query message with the L
       flag set to 1.

   There are several new events that gateway heuristics may
   appropriately use to restart the discovery process, including:

   1.  When the gateway wishes to report a (S,G) subscription with a
       source address that does not currently have other group
       subscriptions.

   2.  When the DNS TTL expires for an AMTRELAY RR or for a domain name
       contained within the AMTRELAY RR.

   3.  When there is a network change detected, for example when a
       gateway is operating inside an end user device or application,
       and the device joins a different network, or when the domain
       portion of a DNS-SD domain name changes in response to a DHCP
       message or administrative configuration.

   4.  When loss or congestion is detected in the stream of AMT packets
       from a relay.

   This list is not exhaustive, nor are any of the listed events always
   strictly required to force a restart of the discovery process.

   Note that during event #1, a gateway may use DNS-SD, but does not
   have sufficient information to use DRIAD, since no source is known.






Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


2.4.2.  Tunnel Stability

   In general, subscribers to active traffic flows that are being
   forwarded by an AMT gateway are less likely to experience a
   degradation in service (for example, from missing or duplicated
   packets) when the gateway continues using the same relay, as long the
   relay is not overloaded and the network conditions remain stable.

   Therefore, gateways should avoid performing a full restart of the
   discovery process during routine cases of event #3 (sending a new
   Request message), but see Section 2.4.3 and Section 2.4.5 for more
   information about exceptions when it may be appropriate to use this
   event.

   Likewise, some operators might use a short DNS TTL expiration (event
   #7) to allow for more responsive load balancing.  If a gateway
   frequently sees short DNS TTLs (for example, under approximately 15
   minutes) for some sources, a helpful heuristic may be to avoid
   restarting the discovery process for those sources, for example with
   an exponential backoff, or a hold-down timer that depends on the
   health or bit-rate of the active and subscribed traffic currently
   being forwarded through the tunnel.

2.4.3.  Flow Health

   In some gateway deployments, it is feasible to monitor the health of
   traffic flows through the gateway, for example by detecting the rate
   of packet loss by communicating out of band with clients, or
   monitoring packets of known protocols with sequence numbers.  Where
   feasible, it's encouraged for gateways to use such traffic health
   information to trigger a restart of the discovery process during
   event #3 (before sending a new Request message).

   However, to avoid synchronized rediscovery by many gateways
   simultaneously after a transient network event upstream of a relay
   results in many receivers detecting poor flow health at the same
   time, it's recommended to add a random delay before restarting the
   discovery process in this case.

   The span of the random portion of the delay should be no less than 10
   seconds by default, but may be administratively configured to support
   different performance requirements.

2.4.4.  Relay Loading and Shutdown

   The L flag (see Section 5.1.4.4 of [RFC7450] is the preferred
   mechanism for a relay to signal overloading or a graceful shutdown to
   gateways.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   A gateway that supports handling of the L flag should generally
   restart the discovery process when it processes a Membership Query
   packet with the L flag set.  It is also recommended that gateways
   avoid choosing a relay that has recently sent an L flag, with
   approximately a 10-minute hold-down.  Gateways MAY use heuristics
   such as this hold-down to override selection of a relay preferred by
   the precedence field in the AMTRELAY RR (see Section 4.2.1).

2.4.5.  Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery

   A gateway should only send DNS queries with the AMTRELAY RRType or
   the DNS-SD DNS queries for an AMT service as part of starting or
   restarting the discovery process.

   However, all AMT relays are required to support handling of Relay
   Discovery messages (e.g. in Section 5.3.3.2 of [RFC7450]).

   So a gateway with an existing connection to a relay can send a Relay
   Discovery message to the unicast address of that AMT relay.  Under
   stable conditions with an unloaded relay, it's expected that the
   relay will return its own unicast address in the Relay Advertisement,
   in response to such a Relay Discovery message.  Since this will not
   result in the gateway changing to another relay unless the relay
   directs the gateway away, this is a reasonable exception to the
   advice against handling event #3 described in Section 2.4.2.

   This behavior is discouraged for gateways that do support the L flag,
   to avoid sending unnecessary packets over the network.

   However, gateways that do not support the L flag may be able to avoid
   a disruption in the forwarded traffic by sending such Relay Discovery
   messages regularly.  When a relay is under load or has started a
   graceful shutdown, it may respond with a different relay address,
   which the gateway can use to connect to a different relay.  This kind
   of coordinated handoff will likely result in a smaller disruption to
   the traffic than if the relay simply stops responding to Request
   messages, and stops forwarding traffic.

   This style of Relay Discovery message (one sent to the unicast
   address of a relay that's already forwarding traffic to this gateway)
   should not be considered a full restart of the relay discovery
   process.  It is recommended for gateways to support the L flag, but
   for gateways that do not support the L flag, sending this message
   during event #3 may help mitigate service degradation when relays
   become unstable.






Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


2.4.6.  Connecting to Multiple Relays

   Relays discovered via the AMTRELAY RR are source-specific relay
   addresses, and may use different pseudo-interfaces from each other
   and from relays discovered via DNS-SD or a non-source-specific
   address, as described in Section 4.1.2.1 of [RFC7450].

   Restarting the discovery process for one pseudo-interface does not
   require restarting the discovery process for other pseudo-interfaces.
   Gateway heuristics about restarting the discovery process should
   operate independently for different tunnels to relays, when
   responding to events that are specific to the different tunnels.

2.5.  DNS Configuration

   Often an AMT gateway will only have access to the source and group IP
   addresses of the desired traffic, and will not know any other name
   for the source of the traffic.  Because of this, typically the best
   way of looking up AMTRELAY RRs will be by using the source IP address
   as an index into one of the reverse mapping trees (in-addr.arpa for
   IPv4, as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035], or ip6.arpa for IPv6,
   as described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3596]).

   Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that AMTRELAY RRs be added to reverse IP
   zones as appropriate.  AMTRELAY records MAY also appear in other
   zones, but the primary intended use case requires a reverse IP
   mapping for the source from an (S,G) in order to be useful to most
   AMT gateways.

   When performing the AMTRELAY RR lookup, any CNAMEs or DNAMEs found
   MUST be followed.  This is necessary to support zone delegation.
   Some examples outlining this need are described in [RFC2317].

   See Section 4 and Section 4.3 for a detailed explanation of the
   contents for a DNS Zone file.

2.6.  Waiting for DNS resolution

   The DNS query functionality is expected to follow ordinary standards
   and best practices for DNS clients.  A gateway MAY use an existing
   DNS client implementation that does so, and MAY rely on that client's
   retry logic to determine the timeouts between retries.

   Otherwise, a gateway MAY re-send a DNS query if it does not receive
   an appropriate DNS response within some timeout period.  If the
   gateway retries multiple times, the timeout period SHOULD be adjusted
   to provide a random exponential back-off.




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   As with the waiting process for the Relay Advertisement message from
   Section 5.2.3.4.3 of [RFC7450], the RECOMMENDED timeout is a random
   value in the range [initial_timeout, MIN(initial_timeout *
   2^retry_count, maximum_timeout)], with a RECOMMENDED initial_timeout
   of 1 second and a RECOMMENDED maximum_timeout of 120 seconds.

3.  Example Deployments

3.1.  Example Receiving Networks

3.1.1.  Tier 3 ISP

   One example of a receiving network is an ISP that offers multicast
   ingest services to its subscribers, illustrated in Figure 3.

   In the example network below, subscribers can join (S,G)s with MLDv2
   or IGMPv3 as described in [RFC4604], and the AMT gateway in this ISP
   can receive and forward multicast traffic from one of the example
   sending networks in Section 3.2 by discovering the appropriate AMT
   relays with a DNS lookup for the AMTRELAY RR with the reverse IP of
   the source in the (S,G).






























Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


                       Internet
                    ^            ^      Multicast-enabled
                    |            |      Receiving Network
             +------|------------|-------------------------+
             |      |            |                         |
             |  +--------+   +--------+    +=========+     |
             |  | Border |---| Border |    |   AMT   |     |
             |  | Router |   | Router |    | gateway |     |
             |  +--------+   +--------+    +=========+     |
             |      |            |              |          |
             |      +-----+------+-----------+--+          |
             |            |                  |             |
             |      +-------------+    +-------------+     |
             |      | Agg Routers | .. | Agg Routers |     |
             |      +-------------+    +-------------+     |
             |            /     \ \     /         \        |
             | +---------------+         +---------------+ |
             | |Access Systems | ....... |Access Systems | |
             | |(CMTS/OLT/etc.)|         |(CMTS/OLT/etc.)| |
             | +---------------+         +---------------+ |
             |        |                        |           |
             +--------|------------------------|-----------+
                      |                        |
                +---+-+-+---+---+        +---+-+-+---+---+
                |   |   |   |   |        |   |   |   |   |
               /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\      /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\
               |_| |_| |_| |_| |_|      |_| |_| |_| |_| |_|

                              Subscribers

                      Figure 3: Receiving ISP Example

3.1.2.  Small Office

   Another example receiving network is a small branch office that
   regularly accesses some multicast content, illustrated in Figure 4.

   This office has desktop devices that need to receive some multicast
   traffic, so an AMT gateway runs on a LAN with these devices, to pull
   traffic in through a non-multicast next-hop.

   The office also hosts some mobile devices that have AMT gateway
   instances embedded inside apps, in order to receive multicast traffic
   over their non-multicast wireless LAN.  (Note that the "Legacy
   Router" is a simplification that's meant to describe a variety of
   possible conditions- for example it could be a device providing a
   split-tunnel VPN as described in [RFC7359], deliberately excluding




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   multicast traffic for a VPN tunnel, rather than a device which is
   incapable of multicast forwarding.)

                    Internet
                 (non-multicast)
                        ^
                        |                  Office Network
             +----------|----------------------------------+
             |          |                                  |
             |    +---------------+ (Wifi)   Mobile apps   |
             |    | Modem+ | Wifi | - - - -  w/ embedded   |
             |    | Router |  AP  |          AMT gateways  |
             |    +---------------+                        |
             |          |                                  |
             |          |                                  |
             |     +----------------+                      |
             |     | Legacy Router  |                      |
             |     |   (unicast)    |                      |
             |     +----------------+                      |
             |      /        |      \                      |
             |     /         |       \                     |
             | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+  |
             | | Phones | | ConfRm | | Desks  |   AMT   |  |
             | | subnet | | subnet | | subnet | gateway |  |
             | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+  |
             |                                             |
             +---------------------------------------------+

                 Figure 4: Small Office (no multicast up)

   By adding an AMT relay to this office network as in Figure 5, it's
   possible to make use of multicast services from the example
   multicast-capable ISP in Section 3.1.1.


















Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


              Multicast-capable ISP
                        ^
                        |                  Office Network
             +----------|----------------------------------+
             |          |                                  |
             |    +---------------+ (Wifi)   Mobile apps   |
             |    | Modem+ | Wifi | - - - -  w/ embedded   |
             |    | Router |  AP  |          AMT gateways  |
             |    +---------------+                        |
             |          |               +=======+          |
             |          +---Wired LAN---|  AMT  |          |
             |          |               | relay |          |
             |     +----------------+   +=======+          |
             |     | Legacy Router  |                      |
             |     |   (unicast)    |                      |
             |     +----------------+                      |
             |      /        |      \                      |
             |     /         |       \                     |
             | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+  |
             | | Phones | | ConfRm | | Desks  |   AMT   |  |
             | | subnet | | subnet | | subnet | gateway |  |
             | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+  |
             |                                             |
             +---------------------------------------------+

                      Figure 5: Small Office Example

   When multicast-capable networks are chained like this, with a network
   like the one in Figure 5 receiving internet services from a
   multicast-capable network like the one in Figure 3, it's important
   for AMT gateways to reach the more local AMT relay, in order to avoid
   accidentally tunneling multicast traffic from a more distant AMT
   relay with unicast, and failing to utilize the multicast transport
   capabilities of the network in Figure 3.

   For this reason, it's RECOMMENDED that AMT gateways by default
   perform service discovery using DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD)
   [RFC6763] for _amt._udp.<domain> (with <domain> chosen as described
   in Section 11 of [RFC6763]) and use the AMT relays discovered that
   way in preference to AMT relays discoverable via the mechanism
   defined in this document (DRIAD).

   It's also RECOMMENDED that when the well-known anycast IP addresses
   defined in Section 7 of [RFC7450] are suitable for discovering an AMT
   relay that can forward traffic from the source, that a DNS record
   with the AMTRELAY RRType be published for those IP addresses along
   with any other appropriate AMTRELAY RRs to indicate the best relative
   precedences for receiving the source traffic.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   Accordingly, AMT gateways SHOULD by default discover the most-
   preferred relay first by DNS-SD, then by DRIAD as described in this
   document (in precedence order, as described in Section 4.2.1), then
   with the anycast addresses defined in Section 7 of [RFC7450] (namely:
   192.52.193.1 and 2001:3::1) if those IPs weren't listed in the
   AMTRELAY RRs.  This default behavior MAY be overridden by
   administrative configuration where other behavior is more appropriate
   for the gateway within its network.

   The discovery and connection process for multiple relays MAY operate
   in parallel, but when forwarding multicast group membership reports
   with new joins from an AMT gateway, membership reports SHOULD be
   forwarded to the most-preferred relays first, falling back to less
   preferred relays only after failing to receive traffic for an
   appropriate timeout, and only after reporting a leave to any more-
   preferred connected relays that have failed to subscribe to the
   traffic.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the default timeout for receiving traffic be
   no less than 3 seconds, but the value MAY be overridden by
   administrative configuration, where known groups or channels need a
   different timeout for successful application performance.

3.2.  Example Sending Networks

3.2.1.  Sender-controlled Relays

   When a sender network is also operating AMT relays to distribute
   multicast traffic, as in Figure 6, each address could appear as an
   AMTRELAY RR for the reverse IP of the sender, or one or more domain
   names could appear in AMTRELAY RRs, and the AMT relay addresses can
   be discovered by finding an A or AAAA record from those domain names.



















Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


                                         Sender Network
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |                                   |
                   | +--------+   +=======+  +=======+ |
                   | | Sender |   |  AMT  |  |  AMT  | |
                   | +--------+   | relay |  | relay | |
                   |     |        +=======+  +=======+ |
                   |     |            |          |     |
                   |     +-----+------+----------+     |
                   |           |                       |
                   +-----------|-----------------------+
                               v
                            Internet
                         (non-multicast)

                      Figure 6: Small Office Example

3.2.2.  Provider-controlled Relays

   When an ISP offers a service to transmit outbound multicast traffic
   through a forwarding network, it might also offer AMT relays in order
   to reach receivers without multicast connectivity to the forwarding
   network, as in Figure 7.  In this case it's RECOMMENDED that the ISP
   also provide a domain name for the AMT relays for use with the
   discovery process defined in this document.

   When the sender wishes to use the relays provided by the ISP for
   forwarding multicast traffic, an AMTRELAY RR should be configured to
   use the domain name provided by the ISP, to allow for address
   reassignment of the relays without forcing the sender to reconfigure
   the corresponding AMTRELAY RRs.




















Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


                     +--------+
                     | Sender |
                     +---+----+        Multicast-enabled
                         |              Sending Network
             +-----------|-------------------------------+
             |           v                               |
             |    +------------+     +=======+ +=======+ |
             |    | Agg Router |     |  AMT  | |  AMT  | |
             |    +------------+     | relay | | relay | |
             |           |           +=======+ +=======+ |
             |           |               |         |     |
             |     +-----+------+--------+---------+     |
             |     |            |                        |
             | +--------+   +--------+                   |
             | | Border |---| Border |                   |
             | | Router |   | Router |                   |
             | +--------+   +--------+                   |
             +-----|------------|------------------------+
                   |            |
                   v            v
                      Internet
                   (non-multicast)

                       Figure 7: Sending ISP Example

4.  AMTRELAY Resource Record Definition

4.1.  AMTRELAY RRType

   The AMTRELAY RRType has the mnemonic AMTRELAY and type code TBD1
   (decimal).

4.2.  AMTRELAY RData Format

   The AMTRELAY RData consists of a 8-bit precedence field, a 1-bit
   "Discovery Optional" field, a 7-bit type field, and a variable length
   relay field.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   precedence  |D|    type     |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   ~                            relay                              ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+






Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


4.2.1.  RData Format - Precedence

   This is an 8-bit precedence for this record.  It is interpreted in
   the same way as the PREFERENCE field described in Section 3.3.9 of
   [RFC1035].

   Relays listed in AMTRELAY records with a lower value for precedence
   are to be attempted first.

   Where there is a tie in precedence, the default choice of relay MUST
   be non-deterministic, to support load balancing.  The AMT gateway
   operator MAY override this default choice with explicit configuration
   when it's necessary for administrative purposes.

   For example, one network might prefer to tunnel IPv6 multicast
   traffic over IPv6 AMT and IPv4 multicast traffic over IPv4 AMT to
   avoid routeability problems in IPv6 from affecting IPv4 traffic and
   vice versa, while another network might prefer to tunnel both kinds
   of traffic over IPv6 to reduce the IPv4 space used by its AMT
   gateways.  In this example scenario or other cases where there is an
   administrative preference that requires explicit configuration, a
   receiving network MAY make systematically different precedence
   choices among records with the same precedence value.

4.2.2.  RData Format - Discovery Optional (D-bit)

   The D bit is a "Discovery Optional" flag.

   If the D bit is set to 0, a gateway using this RR MUST perform AMT
   relay discovery as described in Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC7450], rather
   than directly sending an AMT request message to the relay.

   That is, the gateway MUST receive an AMT relay advertisement message
   (Section 5.1.2 of [RFC7450]) for an address before sending an AMT
   request message (Section 5.1.3 of [RFC7450]) to that address.  Before
   receiving the relay advertisement message, this record has only
   indicated that the address can be used for AMT relay discovery, not
   for a request message.  This is necessary for devices that are not
   fully functional AMT relays, but rather load balancers or brokers, as
   mentioned in Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC7450].

   If the D bit is set to 1, the gateway MAY send an AMT request message
   directly to the discovered relay address without first sending an AMT
   discovery message.

   This bit should be set according to advice from the AMT relay
   operator.  The D bit MUST be set to zero when no information is
   available from the AMT relay operator about its suitability.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


4.2.3.  RData Format - Type

   The type field indicates the format of the information that is stored
   in the relay field.

   The following values are defined:

   o  type = 0: The relay field is empty (0 bytes).

   o  type = 1: The relay field contains a 4-octet IPv4 address.

   o  type = 2: The relay field contains a 16-octet IPv6 address.

   o  type = 3: The relay field contains a wire-encoded domain name.
      The wire-encoded format is self-describing, so the length is
      implicit.  The domain name MUST NOT be compressed.  (See
      Section 3.3 of [RFC1035] and Section 4 of [RFC3597].)

4.2.4.  RData Format - Relay

   The relay field is the address or domain name of the AMT relay.  It
   is formatted according to the type field.

   When the type field is 0, the length of the relay field is 0, and it
   indicates that no AMT relay should be used for multicast traffic from
   this source.

   When the type field is 1, the length of the relay field is 4 octets,
   and a 32-bit IPv4 address is present.  This is an IPv4 address as
   described in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC1035].  This is a 32-bit number in
   network byte order.

   When the type field is 2, the length of the relay field is 16 octets,
   and a 128-bit IPv6 address is present.  This is an IPv6 address as
   described in Section 2.2 of [RFC3596].  This is a 128-bit number in
   network byte order.

   When the type field is 3, the relay field is a normal wire-encoded
   domain name, as described in Section 3.3 of [RFC1035].  Compression
   MUST NOT be used, for the reasons given in Section 4 of [RFC3597].

4.3.  AMTRELAY Record Presentation Format

4.3.1.  Representation of AMTRELAY RRs

   AMTRELAY RRs may appear in a zone data master file.  The precedence,
   D-bit, relay type, and relay fields are REQUIRED.




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   If the relay type field is 0, the relay field MUST be ".".

   The presentation for the record is as follows:

     IN AMTRELAY precedence D-bit type relay

4.3.2.  Examples

   In a DNS authoritative nameserver that understands the AMTRELAY type,
   the zone might contain a set of entries like this:

       $ORIGIN 100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.
       10     IN AMTRELAY  10 0 1 203.0.113.15
       10     IN AMTRELAY  10 0 2 2001:DB8::15
       10     IN AMTRELAY 128 1 3 amtrelays.example.com.

   This configuration advertises an IPv4 discovery address, an IPv6
   discovery address, and a domain name for AMT relays which can receive
   traffic from the source 198.51.100.10.  The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
   are configured with a D-bit of 0 (meaning discovery is mandatory, as
   described in Section 4.2.2), and a precedence 10 (meaning they're
   preferred ahead of the last entry, which has precedence 128).

   For zone files in name servers that don't support the AMTRELAY RRType
   natively, it's possible to use the format for unknown RR types, as
   described in [RFC3597].  This approach would replace the AMTRELAY
   entries in the example above with the entries below:

   [To be removed (TBD): replace 65280 with the IANA-assigned value
   TBD1, here and in Appendix B. ]

     10   IN TYPE65280  \# (
            6  ; length
            0a ; precedence=10
            01 ; D=0, relay type=1, an IPv4 address
            cb00710f ) ; 203.0.113.15
     10   IN TYPE65280  \# (
            18 ; length
            0a ; precedence=10
            02 ; D=0, relay type=2, an IPv6 address
            20010db800000000000000000000000f ) ; 2001:db8::15
     10   IN TYPE65280  \# (
            24 ; length
            80 ; precedence=128
            83 ; D=1, relay type=3, a wire-encoded domain name
            09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d ) ; domain name

   See Appendix B for more details.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document updates the IANA Registry for DNS Resource Record Types
   by assigning type TBD1 to the AMTRELAY record.

   This document creates a new registry named "AMTRELAY Resource Record
   Parameters", with a sub-registry for the "Relay Type Field".  The
   initial values in the sub-registry are:

            +-------+---------------------------------------+
            | Value | Description                           |
            +-------+---------------------------------------+
            |   0   | No relay is present.                  |
            |   1   | A 4-byte IPv4 address is present      |
            |   2   | A 16-byte IPv6 address is present     |
            |   3   | A wire-encoded domain name is present |
            | 4-255 | Unassigned                            |
            +-------+---------------------------------------+

   Values 0, 1, 2, and 3 are further explained in Section 4.2.3 and
   Section 4.2.4.  Relay type numbers 4 through 255 can be assigned with
   a policy of Specification Required (as described in [RFC8126]).

6.  Security Considerations

   [ TBD: these 3 are just the first few most obvious issues, with just
   sketches of the problem.  Explain better, and look for trickier
   issues. ]

6.1.  Record-spoofing

   If AMT is used to ingest multicast traffic, providing a false
   AMTRELAY record to a gateway using it for discovery can result in
   Denial of Service, or artificial multicast traffic from a source
   under an attacker's control.

   Therefore, it is important to ensure that the AMTRELAY record is
   authentic, with DNSSEC [RFC4033] or other operational safeguards that
   can provide assurance of the authenticity of the record contents.

6.2.  Local Override

   The local relays, while important for overall network performance,
   can't be secured by DNSSEC.







Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


6.3.  Congestion

   Multicast traffic, particularly interdomain multicast traffic,
   carries some congestion risks, as described in Section 4 of
   [RFC8085].  Network operators are advised to take precautions
   including monitoring of application traffic behavior, traffic
   authentication, and rate-limiting of multicast traffic, in order to
   ensure network health.

7.  Acknowledgements

   This specification was inspired by the previous work of Doug Nortz,
   Robert Sayko, David Segelstein, and Percy Tarapore, presented in the
   MBONED working group at IETF 93.

   Thanks to Jeff Goldsmith, Toerless Eckert, Mikael Abrahamsson, Lenny
   Giuliano, and Mark Andrews for their very helpful comments.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
              RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   [RFC3597]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
              (RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
              Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC4604]  Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
              Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
              Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
              Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
              August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC7450]  Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2317]  Eidnes, H., de Groot, G., and P. Vixie, "Classless IN-
              ADDR.ARPA delegation", BCP 20, RFC 2317,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2317, March 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2317>.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
              July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.





Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   [RFC4025]  Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying
              Material in DNS", RFC 4025, DOI 10.17487/RFC4025, March
              2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4025>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC5110]  Savola, P., "Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing
              Architecture", RFC 5110, DOI 10.17487/RFC5110, January
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5110>.

   [RFC5507]  IAB, Faltstrom, P., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and P. Koch,
              Ed., "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5507, April 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5507>.

   [RFC6726]  Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
              "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
              RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.

   [RFC6895]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
              Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
              April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.

   [RFC7359]  Gont, F., "Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Tunnel
              Traffic Leakages in Dual-Stack Hosts/Networks", RFC 7359,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7359, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7359>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8313]  Tarapore, P., Ed., Sayko, R., Shepherd, G., Eckert, T.,
              Ed., and R. Krishnan, "Use of Multicast across Inter-
              domain Peering Points", BCP 213, RFC 8313,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8313, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8313>.



Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

Appendix A.  New RRType Request Form

   This is the template for requesting a new RRType recommended in
   Appendix A of [RFC6895].

A. Submission Date:

B.1 Submission Type:
 [x] New RRTYPE  [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
B.2 Kind of RR:
 [x] Data RR     [ ] Meta-RR

C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):
 Name:  Jake Holland
 Email Address: jakeholland.net@gmail.com
 International telephone number: +1-626-486-3706
 Other contact handles: jholland@akamai.com

D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.
 It provides a bootstrap so AMT (RFC 7450) gateways can discover
 an AMT relay that can receive multicast traffic from a specific source,
 in order to signal multicast group membership and receive multicast
 traffic over a unicast tunnel using AMT.

E. Description of the proposed RR type.
   This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
   attachment, or with a publicly available URL.
 Please see draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery.

F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
   and why are they unsatisfactory?
 Some similar concepts appear in IPSECKEY, as described in
 Section 1.2 of [RFC4025]. The IPSECKEY RRType is unsatisfactory
 because it refers to IPSec Keys instead of to AMT relays, but
 the motivating considerations for using reverse IP and for
 providing a precedence are similar--an AMT gateway often
 has access to a source address for a multicast (S,G), but does
 not have access to a relay address that can receive multicast
 traffic from the source, without administrative configuration.

 Defining a format for a TXT record could serve the need for AMT
 relay discovery semantics, but Section 5 of [RFC5507] provides a
 compelling argument for requesting a new RRType instead.




Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
 AMTRELAY

H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
   or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS
   Parameters?
 Yes, IANA is requested to create a subregistry named "AMT Relay
 Type Field" in a "AMTRELAY Resource Record Parameters" registry.
 The field values are defined in Section 4.2.3 and Section 4.2.4,
 and a summary table is given in Section 5.

I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
   servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
   as an unknown RRTYPE (see RFC3597)?
 No.

J. Comments:
 It may be worth noting that the gateway type field from Section 2.3 of
 [RFC4025] and Section 2.5 of [RFC4025] is very similar to the
 Relay Type field in this request.  I tentatively assume that trying to
 re-use that sub-registry is a worse idea than duplicating it, but I'll
 invite others to consider the question and voice an opinion, in case
 there is a different consensus.
    https://www.ietf.org/assignments/
        ipseckey-rr-parameters/ipseckey-rr-parameters.xml

Appendix B.  Unknown RRType construction

   In a DNS resolver that understands the AMTRELAY type, the zone file
   might contain this line:

     IN AMTRELAY 128 0 3 amtrelays.example.com.

   In order to translate this example to appear as an unknown RRType as
   defined in [RFC3597], one could run the following program:
















Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    DRIAD                     January 2019


   <CODE BEGINS>
     $ cat translate.py
     #!/usr/bin/env python3
     import sys
     name=sys.argv[1]
     wire=''
     for dn in name.split('.'):
       if len(dn) > 0:
         wire += ('%02x' % len(dn))
         wire += (''.join('%02x'%ord(x) for x in dn))
     print(len(wire)//2)
     print(wire)

     $ ./translate.py amtrelays.example.com
     22
     09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d
   <CODE ENDS>

   The length and the hex string for the domain name
   "amtrelays.example.com" are the outputs of this program, yielding a
   length of 22 and the above hex string.

   22 is the length of the wire-encoded domain name, so to this we add 2
   (1 for the precedence field and 1 for the combined D-bit and relay
   type fields) to get the full length of the RData.

   This results in a zone file entry like this:

    IN TYPE65280  \# ( 24 ; length
            80 ; precedence = 128
            03 ; D-bit=0, relay type=3 (wire-encoded domain name)
            09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d ) ; domain name

Author's Address

   Jake Holland
   Akamai Technologies, Inc.
   150 Broadway
   Cambridge, MA 02144
   United States of America

   Email: jakeholland.net@gmail.com









Holland                   Expires July 29, 2019                [Page 30]


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