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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

MBONED Working Group                                        C. Jacquenet
Internet-Draft                                              M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational                     France Telecom Orange
Expires: March 10, 2014                                           Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                                  J. Qin
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                 T. Tsou
                                               Huawei Technologies (USA)
                                                                  Q. Sun
                                                           China Telecom
                                                      September 06, 2013


          IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement and Use Cases
                   draft-ietf-mboned-v4v6-mcast-ps-04

Abstract

   This document discusses issues and requirements raised by intra-
   domain IPv4-IPv6 multicast interconnection and co-existence
   scenarios.  It also discusses various multicast use cases which may
   occur during IPv6 transitioning.

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 http://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 March 10, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   (http://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
   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Organization of the Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Scope and Service Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Service Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only
           Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  IPv6 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv4-Only
           Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  IPv6 Receiver and IPv4 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  IPv4 Receiver and IPv6 Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  Group and Source Discovery Considerations . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Subscription  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Multicast Tree Computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.4.  Multicast Adaptation Functions (AF) . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.4.1.  AF For Control Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.2.  AF For Data Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.4.3.  Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.5.  Combination of ASM and SSM Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   Global IPv4 address depletion inevitably challenges service providers
   who must guarantee IPv4 service continuity during the forthcoming
   transition period.  In particular, access to IPv4 contents that are
   multicast to IPv4 receivers becomes an issue when the forwarding of
   multicast data assumes the use of global IPv4 addresses.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   The rarefaction of global IPv4 addresses may indeed affect the
   multicast delivery of IPv4-formatted contents to IPv4 receivers.  For
   example, the observed evolution of ADSL broadband access
   infrastructures from a service-specific, multi-PVC (Permanent Virtual
   Circuit) scheme towards a "service-agnostic", single PVC scheme,
   assumes the allocation of a globally unique IPv4 address on the WAN
   (Wide Area Network) interface of the CPE (Customer Premises
   Equipment), or to a mobile terminal), whatever the number and the
   nature of the services the customer has subscribed to.

   Likewise, the global IPv4 address depletion encourages the
   development of IPv6 receivers while contents may very well remain
   IPv4-formatted, i.e., sourced by an IPv4 application.  There is
   therefore a need to make sure such IPv6 receivers can access
   IPv4-formatted contents during the transition period.

   During the transition period, the usage of the remaining global IPv4
   address blocks will have to be rationalized for the sake of IPv4
   service continuity.  The current state-of-the-art suggests the
   introduction of NAT (Network Address Translation) capabilities
   (generally denoted as CGN, for Carrier-Grade NAT) in providers'
   networks, so that a global IPv4 address will be shared between
   several customers.

   As a consequence, CPE or mobile UE (User Equipment) devices will no
   longer be assigned a dedicated global IPv4 address anymore, and IPv4
   traffic will be privately-addressed until it reaches one of the CGN
   capabilities deployed in the network.  From a multicast delivery
   standpoint, this situation suggests the following considerations:

   o  The current design of some multicast-based services like TV
      broadcasting often relies upon the use of a private IPv4
      addressing scheme because of a walled garden approach.  Privately-
      addressed IGMP [RFC2236][RFC3376] traffic sent by IPv4 receivers
      is generally forwarded over a specific (e.g., "IPTV") PVC towards
      an IGMP Querier located in the access infrastructure, e.g., in
      some deployments it is hosted by a BRAS (BRoadband Access Server)
      device that is the PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol) session endpoint
      and which may also act as a PIM DR (Protocol Independent Multicast
      Designated Router)[RFC4601].  This design does not suffer from
      global IPv4 address depletion by definition (since multicast
      traffic relies upon the use of a private IPv4 addressing scheme),
      but it is inconsistent with migrating the access infrastructure
      towards a publicly-addressed single PVC design scheme.

   o  Likewise, other deployments (e.g., cable operators' environments)
      rely upon the public CPE's address for multicast delivery and will
      therefore suffer from IPv4 address depletion.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   o  The progressive introduction of IPv6 as the only perennial
      solution to global IPv4 address depletion does not necessarily
      assume that multicast-based IPv4 services will be migrated
      accordingly.  Access to IPv4 multicast contents when no global
      IPv4 address can be assigned to a customer raises several issues:
      (1) The completion of the IGMP-based multicast group subscription
      procedure, (2) The computation of the IPv4 multicast distribution
      tree, and (3) The IPv4-inferred addressing scheme to be used in a
      networking environment which will progressively become
      IPv6-enabled.

   This document does not make any assumption on the techniques used for
   the delivery of multicast traffic (e.g., native IP multicast with or
   without traffic isolation features, etc.)

   This document elaborates on the context and discusses multicast-
   related issues and requirements.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document uses the following terms:

   o  Multicast Source: Source of contents that are multicast to
      receivers.  A video streaming server is an example of such source.

   o  Multicast Receiver: Receiver, in short.  A Set Top Box (STB) is an
      example of such receiver.

   o  Multicast Delivery Network: Network in short, covers the realm
      from First Hop Routers that are directly connected to sources to
      IGMP/MLD (Internet Group Management Protocol/Multicast Listener
      Discovery) Querier devices that process IGMP/MLD signalling
      traffic exchanged with receivers.

1.2.  Organization of the Document

   This document is organized as follows:

   o  Section 2 details basic requirements that should be addressed by
      providers involved in the delivery of multicast-based services
      during the transition period,

   o  Section 3 discusses several use cases that reflect issues raised
      by the forthcoming transition period,

   o  Section 4 details design considerations.





Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


2.  Scope and Service Requirements

2.1.  Scope

   Intra-domain only:   The delivery of multicast services such as live
      TV broadcasting often relies upon walled garden designs that
      restrict the scope to the domain where such services can be
      subscribed.  As a consequence, considerations about inter-domain
      multicast are out of the scope of this document.

   Multicast-enabled networks only:  This document assumes that the
      network is IP multicast-enabled.  That is, whatever the IP address
      family of the content, this content will be multicast along
      distribution trees that should be terminated as close to the
      receivers as possible for the sake of bandwidth optimization.  In
      other words, considerations about forwarding multicast traffic
      over unicast-only (access) networks are out of the scope of this
      document.

   Multicast to the receivers, not from the receivers:  This document
      only covers the case where multicast traffic is forwarded by the
      service provider network to the receivers.  The draft does not
      consider multicast services that assume a source/receiver
      heuristic, e.g., videoconferencing services.  The draft primarily
      focuses on residential multicast-based services, as per a typical
      1:n group communication scheme.

2.2.  Service Requirements

   The delivery of multicast contents during the forthcoming transition
   period needs to address the following requirements.  Note that some
   of these requirements are not necessarily specific to the IPv4-to-
   IPv6 transition context, but rather apply to a wide range of
   multicast-based services whatever the environmental constraints, but
   the forthcoming transition period further stresses these requirements
   (see Section 4.4.1 for more details).

   o  Optimize bandwidth.  Contents should not be multicast twice (i.e.,
      using both versions of IP) to optimize bandwidth usage.  Injecting
      multicast content using both IPv4 and IPv6 raises some
      dimensioning issues that should be carefully evaluated by service
      providers during network planning operations.  For instance, if
      only few IPv6-enabled receivers are in use, it can be more
      convenient to convey multicast traffic over IPv4 rather than
      doubling the consumed resources for few users.  IPv4/IPv6 co-
      existence solutions should be designed to optimize network
      resource utilization.




Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   o  Zap rapidly.  The time it takes to switch from one content to
      another must be as short as possible.  For example, zapping times
      between two TV channels should be comparable to an IPv4 case,
      i.e., less than a second so that translation does not
      significantly affect the overhead, whatever the conditions to
      access the multicast network.  A procedure called "IGMP fast-
      leave" is sometimes used to minimize this issue so that the
      corresponding multicast stream is stopped as soon as the IGMP
      Leave message is received by the Querier.  In current deployments,
      IGMP fast-leave often assumes the activation of the IGMP Proxy
      function in DSLAMs.  The complexity of such design is aggravated
      within a context where IPv4 multicast control messages are
      encapsulated in IPv6.

   o  Preserve the integrity of contents that the user sees, i.e., not
      the contents of IP packets.  Some contract agreements may prevent
      a service provider from altering the content owned by the content
      provider, because of copyright, confidentiality and SLA assurance
      reasons.  Multicast streams should be delivered without altering
      their content.

   o  Preserve service quality.  Crossing a CGN or performing multicast
      packet encapsulation may lead to fragmentation or extra delays and
      may therefore impact the perceived quality of service.  Such
      degradation must be avoided.

   o  Optimize IPv4-IPv6 inter-working design.  In some operational
      networks, a source-based stateful NAT function is sometimes used
      for load balancing purposes, for example.  Because of the
      operational issues raised by such a stateful design, the
      deployment of stateless IPv4-IPv6 interworking functions should be
      privileged.

3.  Use Cases

   During the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition period, there might be a mix of
   multicast receivers, sources, and networks running in different
   address families.  However, service providers must guarantee the
   delivery of multicast services to IPv4 receivers and, presumably,
   IPv6 receivers.  Because of the inevitable combination of different
   IP version-related environments (sources, receivers and networks),
   service providers should carefully plan and choose the appropriate
   technique that will optimize the network resources to deliver
   multicast-based services.

   Concretely, several use cases can be considered during the IPv4/ IPv6
   co-existence period.  Some of them are depicted in the following sub-
   sections.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   Note that the following diagrams are meant to illustrate the
   conceptual model.  As such, they do not necessarily mean that the
   Adaptation Functions (AF) are embedded in a separate device and that
   messages need to be explicitly translated into new messages.

3.1.  IPv4 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv6-Only Network

   We refer to this scenario as 4-6-4.  An example of such use case is a
   DS-Lite environment, where customers will share global IPv4
   addresses.  IPv4 receivers are connected to CPE devices that are
   provisioned with an IPv6 prefix only.  Delivering multicast content
   sent by an IPv4 source to such receivers requires the activation of
   some adaptation functions (AFs).  These may operate at the network
   layer (interworking functions (IWF) or at the application layer
   (application level gateways (ALGs)).

   The signalling flow for the 4-6-4 use case is shown in Figure 1.

      +------+      +-----+       +------+         +------+
      | Host | IGMP | DS  |       |  MR  |   PIM   |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |------| AF1 |       |      | . . . . |      |
      |      | IPv4 |     |       | (BG) |   IPv4  | (DR) |
      +------+      +-----+       +------+         +------+
                     /               \
                MLD / IPv6        PIM \ IPv4
                   /                   \
            +------+      +----+       +------+
            |  MR  |  PIM |    | PIM   |  DS  |
            |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF2 |
            | (DR) | IPv6 |    | IPv6  | (BG) |
            +------+      +----+       +------+

            ------------------------------------->

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function (ALG or IWF)
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway

           Figure 1: Signalling Path for the 4-6-4 Scenario.


   AF1 refers to an IGMP/MLD Adaptation Function.  Another Adaptation
   Function AF2 is needed at the border between the IPv6 multicast
   domain and the IPv4 multicast domain where the source resides.  AF2
   is typically embedded in a multicast router that either terminates or



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   propagates PIM signalling directed toward the IPv4 source in the IPv6
   multicast domain.

   On the IPv4 side, AF2 also acts as a multicast router, and uses PIMv4
   signalling to join the IPv4 multicast group.  The return path taken
   by multicast traffic is shown in Figure 2.

      +------+      +-----+     +------+       +------+      +-----+
      | Host |      | DS  |     |  MR  |       |  MR  |      |     |
      | Rcvr |------| AF1 |     |      | . . . |      |------| Src |
      |      | IPv4 |     |     | (BG) | IPv4  | (DR) | IPv4 |     |
      +------+      +-----+     +------+       +------+      +-----+
                     /               \
                    / IPv6            \ IPv4
                   /                   \
            +------+      +----+       +------+
            |  MR  |      |    |       |  DS  |
            |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF2 |
            | (DR) | IPv6 |    | IPv6  | (BG) |
            +------+      +----+       +------+

                <-------------------------------------

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway
      Src : Multicast source

    Figure 2: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path for the 4-6-4 Scenario.


   Again, adaptation functions are needed whenever the IP protocol
   version changes.  The adaptation function instance AF2 at the
   boundary between the source network and the IPv6 network may either
   encapsulate or translate the headers of the IPv4 packets to allow the
   content to cross the IPv6 network.  The adaptation function instance
   at the boundary between the IPv6 network and the receiver network
   performs the reverse operation to deliver IPv4 packets.

   Given the current state-of-the-art where multicast content is likely
   to remain IPv4-formatted while receiver devices such as Set Top Boxes
   will also remain IPv4-only for quite some time, this scenario is
   prioritized by some service providers, including those that are
   deploying or will deploy DS-Lite CGN capabilities for the sake of
   IPv4 service continuity.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


3.2.  IPv6 Receiver and Source Connected to an IPv4-Only Network

   We refer to this scenario as 6-4-6.  Since providers who own the
   multicast content may not be ready for IPv6 migration beofre some
   time, the content is likely to remain IPv4-formatted.  As a
   consequence, this 6-4-6 scenario is of lower priority than the 4-6-4
   scenario.

   The signalling path for the 6-4-6 scenario is illustrated in Figure
   3.

      +------+      +-----+       +------+         +------+
      | Host | MLD  | DS  |       |  MR  |   PIM   |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |------| AF1 |       |      | . . . . |      |
      |      | IPv6 |     |       | (BG) |   IPv6  | (DR) |
      +------+      +-----+       +------+         +------+
                     /               \
               IGMP / IPv4        PIM \ IPv6
                   /                   \
            +------+      +----+       +------+
            |  MR  |  PIM |    | PIM   |  DS  |
            |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF2 |
            | (DR) | IPv4 |    | IPv4  | (BG) |
            +------+      +----+       +------+

                ------------------------------------->

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway

            Figure 3: Signalling Path For the 6-4-6 Scenario.


   Figure 4 shows the path taken by multicast traffic flowing from the
   IPv6 source to the IPv6 receiver.

      +------+      +-----+     +------+       +------+
      | Host |      | DS  |     |  MR  |       |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |------| AF1 |     |      | . . . |      |
      |      | IPv6 |     |     | (BG) | IPv6  | (DR) |
      +------+      +-----+     +------+       +------+
                     /               \               \
                    / IPv4            \ IPv6          \ IPv6
                   /                   \               \



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


            +------+      +----+       +------+      +-----+
            |  MR  |      |    |       |  DS  |      |     |
            |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF2 |      | Src |
            | (DR) | IPv4 |    | IPv4  | (BG) |      |     |
            +------+      +----+       +------+      +-----+

                <-------------------------------------

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway
      Src : Multicast source

    Figure 4: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path For the 6-4-6 Scenario.


3.3.  IPv6 Receiver and IPv4 Source

   We refer to this scenario as 6-4.  An example of such use case is the
   context of some mobile networks, where terminal devices are only
   provisioned with an IPv6 prefix.  Accessing IPv4-formatted multicast
   content from an IPv6-only receiver requires additional functions to
   be enabled.

   This scenario is privileged by mobile operators who deploy NAT64
   capabilities in their network.  It is illustrated in Figures 5
   (signalling path) and 6 (forwarding of multicast traffic).  Only one
   adaptation function instance is needed, and it will be located at the
   IPv4/IPv6 multicast domain boundary.

      +------+                  +------+         +------+
      | Host |                  |  MR  |   PIM   |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |                  |      | . . . . |      |
      |      |                  | (BG) |   IPv4  | (DR) |
      +------+                  +------+         +------+
         \                           \
      MLD \ IPv6                  PIM \ IPv4
           \                           \
        +------+      +----+       +------+
        |  MR  |  PIM |    | PIM   |  DS  |
        |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF1 |
        | (DR) | IPv6 |    | IPv6  | (BG) |
        +------+      +----+       +------+

                ------------------------------------->



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway

                 Figure 5: Signalling Path For the 6-4 Scenario.


      +------+                  +------+         +------+
      | Host |                  |  MR  |         |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |                  |      | . . . . |      |
      |      |                  | (BG) |   IPv4  | (DR) |
      +------+                  +------+         +------+
         \                           \              \
          \ IPv6                      \ IPv4         \ IPv4
           \                           \              \
        +------+      +----+       +------+         +-----+
        |  MR  |      |    |       |  DS  |         |     |
        |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF1 |         | Src |
        | (DR) | IPv6 |    | IPv6  | (BG) |         |     |
        +------+      +----+       +------+         +-----+

                <-------------------------------------

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway
      Src : Multicast source

       Figure 6: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path For the 6-4 Scenario.


3.4.  IPv4 Receiver and IPv6 Source

   We refer to this scenario as 4-6.  Yet, multicast sources are likely
   to remain IPv4-enabled in a first stage; therefore, the content is
   likely to remain IPv4-formatted.  As a consequence, this scenario is
   unlikely to occur during the first years of the transition period.

   The signalling path for this scenario is shown in Figure 7.  The
   multicast traffic forwarding path is shown in Figure 8.  There are
   similarities with the 6-4 scenario but address mapping across IP
   version boundaries is more challenging.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


      +------+                  +------+         +------+
      | Host |                  |  MR  |   PIM   |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |                  |      | . . . . |      |
      |      |                  | (BG) |   IPv6  | (DR) |
      +------+                  +------+         +------+
          \                           \
      IGMP \ IPv4                  PIM \ IPv6
            \                           \
         +------+      +----+       +------+
         |  MR  |  PIM |    | PIM   |  DS  |
         |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF1 |
         | (DR) | IPv4 |    | IPv4  | (BG) |
         +------+      +----+       +------+

                ------------------------------------->

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway

                 Figure 7: Signalling Path For the 4-6 Scenario.


      +------+                  +------+         +------+
      | Host |                  |  MR  |         |  MR  |
      | Rcvr |                  |      | . . . . |      |
      |      |                  | (BG) |   IPv6  | (DR) |
      +------+                  +------+         +------+
         \                           \              \
          \ IPv4                      \ IPv6         \ IPv6
           \                           \              \
        +------+      +----+       +------+         +-----+
        |  MR  |      |    |       |  DS  |         |     |
        |      |------| MR | . . . |  AF1 |         | Src |
        | (DR) | IPv4 |    | IPv4  | (BG) |         |     |
        +------+      +----+       +------+         +-----+

                <-------------------------------------

      Rcvr: Multicast receiver
      DS  : Dual Stack
      AF  : Adaptation Function
      MR  : Multicast Router
      DR  : Designated Router
      BG  : Border Gateway



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


      Src : Multicast source

       Figure 8: Multicast Traffic Forwarding Path For the 4-6 Scenario.


3.5.  Summary

   To summarize, the use cases of highest priority are those involving
   IPv4 sources, i.e., the 4-6-4 and 6-4 scenarios.

4.  Design Requirements

4.1.  Group and Source Discovery Considerations

   Multicast applications that embed address information in the payload
   may require Application Level Gateway (ALG) during the transition
   period.  An ALG is application-specific by definition, and may
   therefore be unnecessary depending on the nature of the multicast
   service.

   Such ALG (Application Level Gateway) may also be required to help an
   IPv6 receiver select the appropriate multicast group address when
   only the IPv4 address is advertised (e.g., when the SDP (Session
   Description Protocol) protocol is used to advertise some contents);
   otherwise, access to IPv4 multicast content from an IPv6 receiver may
   be compromised.

   ALGs may be located upstream in the network.  As a consequence, these
   ALGs do not know in advance whether the receiver is dual-stack or
   IPv6-only.  In order to avoid the use of an ALG in the path, an
   IPv4-only source can advertise both an IPv4 multicast group address
   and the corresponding IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast group address
   [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format].

   However, a dual-stack receiver may prefer to use the IPv6 address to
   receive the multicast content.  The selection of the IPv6 multicast
   address would then require multicast flows to cross an IPv4-IPv6
   interworking function.

   The receiver should therefore be able to unambiguously distinguish an
   IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast address from a native IPv6 multicast
   address.









Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


4.2.  Subscription

   Multicast distribution trees are receiver-initiated.  IPv4 receivers
   that want to subscribe to an IPv4 multicast group will send IGMP
   Report messages accordingly.  In case the underlying access network
   is IPv6, the information conveyed in IGMP messages should be relayed
   by corresponding MLD messages.

4.3.  Multicast Tree Computation

   Grafting to an IPv4 multicast distribution tree through an IPv6
   multicast domain suggests that IPv4 multicast traffic will have to be
   conveyed along an "IPv6-equivalent" multicast distribution tree.
   That is, part of the multicast distribution tree along which IPv4
   multicast traffic will be forwarded should be computed and maintained
   by means of the PIMv6 machinery, so that the distribution tree can be
   terminated as close to the IPv4 receivers as possible for the sake of
   the multicast forwarding efficiency.

   This assumes a close interaction between the PIM designs enforced in
   both IPv4 and IPv6 multicast domains, by means of specific Inter-
   Working Functions that are further discussed in Section 4.4.

   Such interaction may be complicated by different combinations: the
   IPv4 multicast domain is SSM-enabled (with no RP (Rendezvous Point)
   routers), while the IPv6 multicast domain may support both ASM (Any
   Source Multicast) and SSM (Source Specific Multicast) [RFC3569]
   modes.

4.4.  Multicast Adaptation Functions (AF)

   IPv4-IPv6 multicast interworking functions are required for both
   translation (one address family to another) and traversal (one
   address family over another) contexts.

   Given the multiple versions of Group Membership management protocols,
   issues may be raised when, for example, IGMPv2 is running in the IPv4
   multicast domain that is connected to the IPv6 multicast domain by
   means of an IWF, while MLDv2 is running in the IPv6 multicast domain.
   To solve these problems, the design of the IWF function should adhere
   to the IP version-independent, protocol interaction approach
   documented in Section 8 of [RFC3810] and Section 7 of [RFC3376].









Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   Note that, for traversal cases, to improve the efficiency of the
   multicast service delivery, traffic will be multicast along
   distribution trees that should be terminated as close to the
   receivers as possible for bandwidth optimization purposes.  As a
   reminder, the traversal of unicast-only (access) networks is not
   considered in this document.

4.4.1.  AF For Control Flows

   The IWF to process multicast signalling flows (such as IGMP or MLD
   Report messages) should be independent of the IP version and consist
   mainly of an IPv4-IPv6 adaptation element and an IP address
   translation element.  The message format adaptation must follow what
   is specified in [RFC3810] or [RFC4601], and the device that embeds
   the IWF device must be multicast-enabled, i.e., support IGMP, MLD and
   /or PIM, depending on the context (address family-wise) and the
   design (e.g., this device could be a PIM DR in addition to a MLD
   Querier).

   The IWF can then be operated in the following modes: IGMP-MLD,
   PIMv4-PIMv6, MLD-PIMv4 and IGMP-PIMv6.  In particular, Source-
   Specific Multicast (SSM) must be supported (i.e., IGMPv3/MLDv2
   signalling traffic as well as the ability to directly send PIM (S, G)
   Join messages towards the source).

   The following sub-sections describe some interworking functions which
   may be solicited, depending on the environment.  Note that it may not
   be a stand-alone IWF that simply translates messages, but, for
   example, the combination of IPv4 and IPv6 states that would trigger
   the forwarding of aggregated MLD Report messages upstream that would
   include IPv6 groups based upon IPv4 states.

4.4.1.1.  IGMP-MLD Interworking

   The IGMP-MLD Interworking Function combines the IGMP/MLD Proxying
   function specified in [RFC4605] and the IGMP/MLD adaptation function
   which is meant to reflect the contents of IGMP messages into MLD
   messages, and vice versa.

   For example, when an IGMP Report message is received to subscribe to
   a given multicast group (which may be associated to a source address
   if SSM mode is used), the IGMP-MLD Interworking Function must send an
   MLD Report message to subscribe to the corresponding IPv6 multicast
   group.

4.4.1.2.  IPv4-IPv6 PIM Interworking





Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   [RFC4601] allows the computation of PIM-based IPv4 or IPv6
   distribution trees; PIM is IP version agnostic.  There is no specific
   IPv6 PIM machinery that would work differently than an IPv4 PIM
   machinery.  The new features needed for the IPv4-IPv6 PIM
   Interworking Function consist in dynamically triggering the PIM
   message of Address Family 1 upon receipt of the equivalent PIM
   message of Address Family 2.

   The address mapping must be performed similarly to that of the IGMP-
   MLD Interworking Function.

4.4.1.3.  MLD-IPv4 PIM Interworking

   This IWF function is required when the MLD Querier is connected to an
   IPv4 PIM domain.

   The address mapping must be performed similarly to that of the IGMP-
   MLD Interworking Function.

4.4.1.4.  IGMP-IPv6 PIM Interworking

   The address mapping must be performed similarly to that of the IGMP-
   MLD Interworking Function.

4.4.2.  AF For Data Flows

   The IWF to be used for multicast data flows is operated at the
   boundary between IPv4 and IPv6 multicast networks.  Either
   encapsulation/de-capsulation or translation modes can be enforced,
   depending on the design.  Note that translation operations must
   follow the algorithm specified in [RFC6145].

4.4.3.  Address Mapping

   The address mapping mechanisms to be used in either a stateful or
   stateless fashion need to be specified for the translation from one
   address family to the other.

   The address formats can be those defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format] and [RFC6052] for
   IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast and unicast addresses.  Mapping
   operations are performed in a stateless manner by the algorithms
   specified in the aforementioned documents.

   In this context, the IPv6 prefixes required for embedding IPv4
   addresses can be assigned to devices that support IWF features by
   various means (e.g., static or dynamic configuration, out-of-band
   mechanisms, etc.).



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   If stateful approaches are used, it is recommended to carefully
   investigate the need to synchronize mapping states between multiple
   boxes, and the coordination of the IWF and source/group discovery
   elements is also required, at the cost of extra complexity.

4.5.  Combination of ASM and SSM Modes

   The ASM (Any Source Multicast) mode could be used to optimize the
   forwarding of IPv4 multicast traffic sent by different sources into
   the IPv6 multicast domain by selecting RP routers that could be
   located at the border between the IPv6 and the IPv4 multicast
   domains.  This design may optimize the multicast forwarding
   efficiency in the IPv6 domain when access to several IPv4 multicast
   sources needs to be granted.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

6.  Security Considerations

   Access to contents in a multicast-enabled environment raises
   different security issues that have been already documented.  In
   particular:

   o  When translating ASM-SSM there are certain security expectations
      from SSM (only receiving from the single specified sender), which
      are not the same expectations that come from ASM.

   o  If mappings are not stateful, it may be harder to monitor and
      troubleshoot the traffic.

   o  There are concepts of IPv4 and IPv6 multicast scopes.  When
      translating, it must be taken into account how to reasonably map
      between scopes, and it is important that the scopes are configured
      appropriately on the routers so that a scope intended to be within
      a site for IPv4 (for example), doesn't leak outside the site due
      to translation to IPv6 inside the site.

7.  Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to T. Taylor for providing the figures and some of the
   text that illustrate the use cases depicted in Section 3.  Thanks
   also to H. Asaeda, M. Blanchet, M. Eubanks, B. Haberman, N. Leymann,
   S. Perrault and S. Venaas for their valuable comments and support.



Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC3569]  Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific
              Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
              Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [RFC4605]  Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
              "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP
              /MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, August 2006.

   [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format]
              Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Lee, Y., Venaas, S., Li, X., and
              M. Xu, "IPv6 Multicast Address With Embedded IPv4
              Multicast Address", draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-
              address-format-05 (work in progress), April 2013.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              October 2010.

Authors' Addresses









Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   Christian Jacquenet
   France Telecom Orange
   4 rue du Clos Courtel
   Cesson-Sevigne  35512
   France

   Phone: +33 2 99 12 43 82
   Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom Orange
   4 rue du Clos Courtel
   Cesson-Sevigne  35512
   France

   Phone: +33 2 99 12 43 71
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Yiu Lee
   Comcast
   US

   Email: Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com


   Jacni Qin
   Cisco Systems
   People's Republic of China

   Email: jacni@jacni.com


   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 330 4424
   Email: tena@huawei.com









Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   IPv4-IPv6 Multicast: Problem Statement   September 2013


   Qiong Sun
   China Telecom
   Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
   Beijing  100035
   People's Republic of China

   Phone: >+86-10-58552936
   Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn











































Jacquenet, et al.        Expires March 10, 2014                [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/