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

Versions: (draft-farinacci-pim-port) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6559

Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                              IJ. Wijnands
Intended status: Experimental                                  S. Venaas
Expires: December 18, 2011                                 cisco Systems
                                                            M. Napierala
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                           June 16, 2011


                 A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM
                       draft-ietf-pim-port-07.txt

Abstract

   This draft describes how a reliable transport mechanism can be used
   by the PIM protocol to optimize CPU and bandwidth resource
   utilization by eliminating periodic Join/Prune message transmission.
   This draft proposes a modular extension to PIM to use either the TCP
   or SCTP transport protocol.

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 December 18, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (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



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   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.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  PIM Hello Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  PIM over the TCP Transport Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  PIM over the SCTP Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Interface ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Establishing Transport Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Connection Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.2.  Connection Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.3.  Actions When a Connection Goes Down  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.4.  Moving from PORT to Datagram Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.5.  On-demand versus Pre-configured Connections  . . . . . . . 16
     4.6.  Possible Hello Suppression Considerations  . . . . . . . . 16
     4.7.  Avoiding a Pair of TCP Connections between Neighbors . . . 17
   5.  PORT Message Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.1.  PORT Join/Prune Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.2.  PORT Keep-alive Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.3.  PORT Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  Explicit Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7.  Multiple Address-Family Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  Miscellany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     10.1. PORT Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     10.2. PORT Hello Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     10.3. PORT Message Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     10.4. PORT Option Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   12. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33









Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


1.  Introduction

   The goals of this specification are:

   o  To create a simple incremental mechanism to provide reliable PIM
      message delivery in PIM version 2 for use with PIM Sparse-Mode
      [RFC4601] (including Source-Specific Multicast) and Bidirectional
      PIM [RFC5015].

   o  The reliable transport mechanism will be used for Join-Prune
      message transmission only.

   o  When a router supports this specification, it need not use the
      reliable transport mechanism with every neighbor.  It can be
      negotiated on a per neighbor basis.

   The explicit non-goals of this specification are:

   o  Changes to the PIM message formats as defined in [RFC4601].

   o  Provide support for automatic switching between the reliable
      transport mechanism and the regular PIM mechanism defined in
      [RFC4601].  Two routers that are PIM neighbors on a link will
      always use the reliable transport mechanism if and only if both
      have enabled support for the reliable transport mechanism.

   This document will specify how periodic Join/Prune message
   transmission can be eliminated by using TCP [RFC0793] or SCTP
   [RFC4960] as the reliable transport mechanism for Join/Prune
   messages.

   This specification enables greater scalability in terms of control
   traffic overhead.  However, for routers connected to multi-access
   links that comes at the price of increased control plane state
   overhead and the control plane overhead required to maintain this
   state.

   In many existing and emerging networks, particularly wireless and
   mobile satellite systems, link degradation due to weather,
   interference, and other impairments can result in temporary spikes in
   the packet loss.  In these environments, periodic PIM joining can
   cause join latency when messages are lost causing a retransmission
   only 60 seconds later.  By applying a reliable transport, a lost join
   is retransmitted rapidly.  Furthermore, when the last user leaves a
   multicast group, any lost prune is similarly repaired and the
   multicast stream is quickly removed from the wireless/satellite link.
   Without a reliable transport, the multicast transmission could
   otherwise continue until it timed out, roughly 3 minutes later.  As



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   network resources are at a premium in many of these environments,
   rapid termination of the multicast stream is critical for maintaining
   efficient use of bandwidth.
















































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


1.1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.2.  Definitions

   PORT:   Stands for PIM Over Reliable Transport.  Which is the short
      form for describing the mechanism in this specification where PIM
      can use the TCP or SCTP transport protocol.

   Periodic Join/Prune message:   A Join/Prune message sent periodically
      to refresh state.

   Incremental Join/Prune message:   A Join/Prune message sent as a
      result of state creation or deletion events.  Also known as a
      triggered message.

   Native Join/Prune message:   A Join/Prune message that is carried
      with an IP protocol type of PIM.

   PORT Join/Prune message:   A Join/Prune message using TCP or SCTP for
      transport.

   Datagram Mode:   The current procedures PIM uses by encapsulating
      Join/Prune messages in IP packets sent either triggered or
      periodically.

   PORT Mode:   Procedures used by PIM defined in this specification for
      sending Join/Prune messages over the TCP or SCTP transport layer.




















Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


2.  Protocol Overview

   PIM Over Reliable Transport (PORT) is a simple extension to PIMv2 for
   refresh reduction of PIM Join/Prune messages.  It involves sending
   incremental rather than periodic Join/Prune messages over a TCP/SCTP
   connection between PIM neighbors.

   PORT only applies to PIM Sparse-Mode [RFC4601] and Bidirectional PIM
   [RFC5015] Join/Prune messages.

   This document does not restrict PORT to any specific link types.
   However, the use of PORT on e.g. multi-access LANs with many PIM
   neighbors should be carefully evaluated.  This due to the fact that
   there may be a full mesh of PORT connections, and that explicit
   tracking of all PIM PORT routers is required.

   PORT can be incrementally used on a link between PORT capable
   neighbors.  Routers that are not PORT capable can continue to use PIM
   in Datagram Mode.  PORT capability is detected using new PORT Capable
   PIM Hello Options.

   Once PORT is enabled on an interface and a PIM neighbor also
   announces that it is PORT enabled, only PORT Join/Prune messages will
   be used.  That is, only PORT Join/Prune messages are accepted from,
   and sent to, that particular neighbor.  Native Join/Prune messages
   are still used for PIM neighbors that are not PORT enabled.

   PORT Join/Prune messages are sent using a TCP/SCTP connection.  When
   two PIM neighbors are PORT enabled, both for TCP or both for SCTP,
   they will immediately, or on-demand, establish a connection.  If the
   connection goes down, they will again immediately, or on-demand, try
   to reestablish the connection.  No Join/Prune messages (neither
   Native nor PORT) are sent while there is no connection.  Also, any
   received native Join/Prune messages from that neighbor are discarded,
   even when the connection is down.

   When PORT is used, only incremental Join/Prune messages are sent from
   downstream routers to upstream routers.  As such, downstream routers
   do not generate periodic Join/Prune messages for state for which the
   RPF neighbor is PORT-capable.

   For Joins and Prunes, which are received over a TCP/SCTP connection,
   the upstream router does not start or maintain timers on the outgoing
   interface entry.  Instead, it keeps track of which downstream routers
   have expressed interest.  An interface is deleted from the outgoing
   interface list only when all downstream routers on the interface, no
   longer wish to receive traffic.  If there also are native joins/
   prunes from non-PORT neighbor, then one can maintain timers on the



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   outgoing interface entry as usual, while at the same time keep track
   of each of the downstream PORT joins/prunes.

   This document does not update the PIM Join/Prune packet format.
   However, for Join/Prune messages sent over TCP/SCTP connections, only
   what would be the IP payload of a native PIM Join/Prune is included,
   there is no IP Header.  Each message is contained in a PORT message.
   See section Section 5 for details on the PORT message.











































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


3.  PIM Hello Options

3.1.  PIM over the TCP Transport Protocol

   Option Type: PIM-over-TCP Capable


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Type = 27           |         Length = 4 + X        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     TCP Connection ID AFI     |        Reserved       |  Exp  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       TCP Connection ID                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Allocated Hello Type values can be found in [HELLO-OPT].

   When a router is configured to use PIM over TCP on a given interface,
   it MUST include the PIM-over-TCP Capable hello option in its Hello
   messages for that interface.  If a router is explicitly disabled from
   using PIM over TCP, it MUST NOT include the PIM-over-TCP Capable
   hello option in its Hello messages.

   All Hello messages containing the PIM-over-TCP Capable hello option,
   MUST also contain the Interface ID hello option, see section
   Section 3.3.

   Implementations MAY provide a configuration option to enable or
   disable PORT functionality.  It is RECOMMENDED that this capability
   be disabled by default.

   Length:   Length in bytes for the value part of the Type/Length/Value
      encoding; where X is the number of bytes that make up the
      Connection ID field.  X is 4 when AFI of value 1 (IPv4) is used,
      16 when AFI of value 2 (IPv6) is used, and 0 if AFI of value 0 is
      used [AFI].

   TCP Connection ID AFI:   The AFI value to describe the address-family
      of the address of the TCP Connection ID field.  When this field is
      0, a mechanism outside the scope of this document is used to
      obtain the addresses used to establish the TCP connection.







Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   Reserved:   Set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.

   Exp:   For experimental use [RFC3692].

   TCP Connection ID:   An IPv4 or IPv6 address used to establish the
      TCP connection.  This field is omitted (length 0) for the
      Connection ID AFI 0.

3.2.  PIM over the SCTP Transport Protocol

   Option Type: PIM-over-SCTP Capable


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Type = 28           |         Length = 4 + X        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     SCTP Connection ID AFI    |        Reserved       |  Exp  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       SCTP Connection ID                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Allocated Hello Type values can be found in [HELLO-OPT].

   When a router is configured to use PIM over SCTP on a given
   interface, it MUST include the PIM-over-SCTP Capable hello option in
   its Hello messages for that interface.  If a router is explicitly
   disabled from using PIM over SCTP, it MUST NOT include the PIM-over-
   SCTP Capable hello option in its Hello messages.

   All Hello messages containing the PIM-over-SCTP Capable hello option,
   MUST also contain the Interface ID hello option, see section
   Section 3.3.

   Implementations MAY provide a configuration option to enable or
   disable PORT functionality.  It is RECOMMENDED that this capability
   be disabled by default.

   Length:   Length in bytes for the value part of the Type/Length/Value
      encoding; where X is the number of bytes that make up the
      Connection ID field.  X is 4 when AFI of value 1 (IPv4) is used,
      16 when AFI of value 2 (IPv6) is used, and 0 if AFI of value 0 is
      used [AFI].






Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   SCTP Connection ID AFI:   The AFI value to describe the address-
      family of the address of the SCTP Connection ID field.  When this
      field is 0, a mechanism outside the scope of this document is used
      to obtain the addresses used to establish the SCTP connection.

   Reserved:   Set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.

   Exp:   For experimental use [RFC3692].

   SCTP Connection ID:   An IPv4 or IPv6 address used to establish the
      SCTP connection.  This field is omitted (length 0) for the
      Connection ID AFI 0.

3.3.  Interface ID

   All Hello messages containing PIM-over-TCP Capable or PIM-over-SCTP
   Capable hello options, MUST also contain the Interface ID hello
   option [I-D.ietf-pim-hello-intid].

   The Interface ID is used to associate a PORT Join/Prune message with
   the PIM neighbor that it is coming from.  When unnumbered interfaces
   are used or when a single Transport connection is used for sending
   and receiving Join/Prune messages over multiple interfaces, the
   Interface ID is used to convey the interface from Join/Prune message
   sender to Join/Prune message receiver.  The value of the Interface ID
   hello option in Hellos sent on an interface, MUST be the same as the
   Interface ID value in all PORT Join/Prune messages sent to a PIM
   neighbor on that interface.

   The Interface ID need only uniquely identify an interface of a
   router, it does not need to identify which router the interface
   belongs to.  This means that the Router ID part of the Interface ID
   MAY be 0.  For details on the Router ID and the value 0, see
   [I-D.ietf-pim-hello-intid].

















Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


4.  Establishing Transport Connections

   While a router interface is PORT enabled, a PIM-over-TCP or a PIM-
   over-SCTP option MUST be included in the PIM Hello messages sent on
   that interface.  When a router on a PORT-enabled interface receives a
   Hello message containing a PIM-over-TCP/PIM-over-SCTP Option from a
   new neighbor, or an existing neighbor that did not previously include
   the option, it switches to PORT mode for that particular neighbor.

   When a router switches to PORT mode for a neighbor, it stops sending
   and accepting Native Join/Prune messages for that neighbor.  Any
   state from previous Native Join/Prune messages is left to expire as
   normal.  It will also attempt to establish a Transport connection
   (TCP or SCTP) with the neighbor.  If both the router and its neighbor
   have announced both PIM-over-TCP and PIM-over-SCTP options, SCTP MUST
   be used.  This resolves the issue where two transports are both
   offered.  The method prefers SCTP over TCP, because SCTP has benefits
   such as call collision handling and support for multiple streams, as
   discussed later in this document.

   When the router is using TCP, it will compare the TCP Connection ID
   it announced in the PIM-over-TCP Capable Option with the TCP
   Connection ID in the Hello received from the neighbor.  Unless
   connections are opened on-demand (see below), the router with the
   lower Connection ID MUST do an active Transport open to the neighbor
   Connection ID.  The router with the higher Connection ID MUST do a
   passive Transport open.  An implementation MAY open connections only
   on-demand, in that case it may be that the neighbor with the higher
   Connection ID does the active open, see Section 4.5.  If the router
   with the lower Connection ID chooses to only do an active open on-
   demand, it MUST do a passive open, allowing for the neighbor to
   initiate the connection.  Note that the source address of the active
   open MUST be the announced Connection ID.

   When the router is using SCTP, the IP address comparison need not be
   done since the SCTP protocol can handle call collision.

   If PORT is used both for IPv4 and IPv6, both IPv4 and IPv6 PIM Hello
   messages MUST be sent, both containing PORT Hello options.  If two
   neighbors announce the same transport (TCP or SCTP) and the same
   Connection ID in the IPv4 and IPv6 Hello messages, then only one
   connection is established and is shared.  Otherwise, two connections
   are established and are used separately.

   The PIM router that performs the active open initiates the connection
   with a locally generated source transport port number and a well-
   known destination transport port number.  The PIM router that
   performs the passive open listens on the well-known local transport



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   port number and does not qualify the remote transport port number.
   See Section 5 for well-known port number assignment for PORT.

   When a Transport connection is established (or reestablished), the
   two routers MUST both send a full set of Join/Prune messages for
   state for which the other router is the upstream neighbor.  This is
   needed to ensure that the upstream neighbor has the correct state.
   When moving from Datagram mode, or when the connection has gone down,
   the router cannot be sure that all the previous Join/Prune state was
   received by the neighbor.  Any state created before the connection
   was established (or reestablished) that is not refreshed, MUST be
   left to expire and be deleted.  When the non-refreshed state has
   expired and been deleted, the two neighbors will be in sync.

   It is possible that a router starts sending Hello messages with a new
   Connection ID, e.g. due to configuration changes.  A router MUST
   always use the last announced and last seen Connection IDs.  A
   connection is identified by the local Connection ID (the one we are
   announcing on a particular interface), and the remote Connection ID
   (the one we are receiving from a neighbor on the same interface).
   When either the local or remote ID changes, the Connection ID pair we
   need a connection for changes.  There may be an existing connection
   with the same pair, in which case the router will share that
   connection.  Or a new connection may need to be established.  Note
   that for link-local addresses, the interface should be regarded as
   part of the ID, so that connection sharing is not attempted when the
   same link-local addresses are seen on different interfaces.

   When a Connection ID changes, if the previously used connection is
   not needed (there are no other PIM neighborships using the same
   Connection ID pair), both peers MUST attempt to reset the transport
   connection.  Next (even if the old connection is still needed), they
   MUST, unless a connection already exists with the new Connection ID
   pair, immediately or on-demand attempt to establish a new connection
   with the new Connection ID pair.

   Normally the Interface ID would not change while a connection is up.
   However, if it does, it does not affect the connection.  It just
   means that when subsequent PORT join/prune messages are received,
   they should be matched against the last seen Interface ID.

   Note that, a Join sent over a Transport connection will only be seen
   by the upstream router, and thus will not cause routers on the link
   that do not use PIM PORT with the upstream router to possibly delay
   the refresh of Join state for the same state.  Similarly, a Prune
   sent over a Transport connection will only be seen by the upstream
   router, and will thus never cause routers on the link that do not use
   PIM PORT with the upstream router, to send a Join to override this



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   Prune.

   Note also, that a datagram PIM Join/Prune message for a said (S,G) or
   (*,G) sent by some router on a link will not cause routers on the
   same link that use a Transport connection with the upstream router
   for that state, to suppress the refresh of that state to the upstream
   router (because they don't need to periodically refresh this state)
   or to send a Join to override a Prune (as the upstream router will
   only stop forwarding the traffic when all joined routers that use a
   Transport connection have explicitly sent a Prune for this state, as
   explained in Section 6).

4.1.  Connection Security

   TCP/SCTP packets used for PORT MUST be sent with a TTL/Hop Limit of
   255 to facilitate enabling of the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
   (GTSM) [RFC5082].  Implementations SHOULD provide a configuration
   option to enable the GTSM check at the receiver.  This means checking
   that inbound packets from directly connected neighbors have a TTL/Hop
   Limit of 255, but MAY also allow for a different TTL/Hop Limit
   threshold to check that the sender is within a certain number of
   router hops.  The GTSM check SHOULD be disabled by default.

   Implementations SHOULD support the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
   [RFC5925] and SCTP Authenticated Chunks [RFC4895].

4.2.  Connection Maintenance

   TCP is designed to keep connections up indefinitely during a period
   of network disconnection.  If a PIM-over-TCP router fails, the TCP
   connection may stay up until the neighbor actually reboots, and even
   then it may continue to stay up until you actually try to send the
   neighbor some information.  This is particularly relevant to PIM,
   since the flow of Join/Prune messages might be in only one direction,
   and the downstream neighbor might never get any indication via TCP
   that the other end of the connection is not really there.

   SCTP has a heart beat mechanism that can be used to detect that a
   connection is working, even when no data is sent.

   One can detect that a PORT connection is not working by regularly
   sending PORT messages.  This applies to both TCP and SCTP.  E.g., for
   TCP the connection will be reset if no TCP ACKs are received after a
   few retries.  PORT in itself does not require any periodic signaling.
   PORT Join/Prune messages are only sent when there is a state change.
   If the state changes are not frequent enough, a PORT Keep-Alive
   message can be sent instead.  E.g. if an implementation wants to send
   a PORT message, to check that the connection is working, at least



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   every 60 seconds, then whenever there is 60 seconds since the
   previous message, a Keep-Alive message could be sent.  If there were
   less than 60 seconds between each Join/Prune, no Keep-Alive messages
   would be needed.  Implementations SHOULD support the use of PORT
   Keep-Alive messages.  It is RECOMMENDED that a configuration option
   is available to network administrators to enable it when needed.
   Note that Keep-Alives can be used by a peer, independently of whether
   the other peer supports it.

   The mechanism above relies on the connection eventually going down
   when we don't get any ACKs for the data we send.  A quicker and more
   reliable way of detecting that a connection is not working, is to
   send regular PORT messages, and have our peer take down the
   connection if it doesn't receive them.  This can be done by sending
   Keep-alive messages with a non-zero Holdtime value.  If the last
   received Keep-alive message had a non-zero Holdtime, one tears down
   the connection if the time measured in seconds since the last
   processed PORT message exceeds the specified Holdtime.

   Implementations SHOULD support Keep-Alive messages.  An
   implementation that supports Keep-Alive messages acts as follows when
   processing a received PORT message.  When processing a Keep-Alive
   message with a non-zero Holdtime value, it MUST set a timer to the
   value.  We call this timer Connection Expiry Timer (CET).  If the CET
   is already running, it MUST be reset to the new value.  When
   processing a Keep-Alive message with a zero Holdtime value, the CET
   MUST be stopped if running.  When processing a PORT message other
   than Keep-Alive, the CET MUST be reset to the last received Holdtime
   value if running.  If the CET is not running, no action is taken.  If
   the CET expires, the connection SHOULD be shut down.  This
   specification does not mandate a specific default Holdtime value.
   However, the dynamic congestion and flow control in TCP and SCTP can
   result in variable transit delay between the endpoints when capacity
   varies, there may be loss in the network or variable link
   performance.  Consistent behaviour therefore requires a sufficiently
   large Holdtime value.  E.g., 60 seconds to prevent premature
   termination.

   It is possible that a router receives Join/Prune messages for an
   interface/link that is down.  As long as the neighbor has not
   expired, it is RECOMMENDED processing those messages as usual.  If
   they are ignored, then the router SHOULD ensure it gets a full update
   for that interface when it comes back up.  This can be done by
   changing the GenID (Generation Identifier, see [RFC4601]), or by
   terminating and reestablishing the connection.

   If a PORT neighbor changes its GenID and a connection is established
   or attempting to be established, the local side should generally tear



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   down the connection and do as described in Section 4.3.  However, if
   the connection is shared by multiple interfaces and the GenID changes
   only for one of them, the local side SHOULD simply send a full
   update, similar to other cases when a GenID changes for an upstream
   neighbor.

4.3.  Actions When a Connection Goes Down

   A connection may go down for a variety of reasons.  It may be due to
   an error condition, or a configuration change.  A connection SHOULD
   be shut down as soon as there are no more PIM neighbors using it.
   That is, for the connection we have associated local and remote
   Connection IDs.  When there is no PIM neighbor with that particular
   remote connection ID on any interface where we announce the local
   connection ID, the connection SHOULD be shut down.  This may happen
   when a new connection ID is configured, PORT is disabled, or a PIM
   neighbor expires.

   If a PIM neighbor expires, one should free connection state and
   downstream oif-list state for the neighbor.  A downstream router,
   when an upstream neighboring router has expired, will simply update
   the RPF neighbor for the corresponding state to a new neighbor where
   it would trigger Join/Prune messages.  This behavior is according to
   [RFC4601] where also the term RPF neighbor is defined.  It is
   required of a PIM router to clear its neighbor table for a neighbor
   who has timed out due to neighbor holdtime expiration.

   When a connection is no longer available between two PORT enabled PIM
   neighbors, they MUST immediately, or on-demand, try to reestablish
   the connection following the normal rules for connection
   establishment.  The neighbors MUST also start expiry timers so that
   all oif-list state for the neighbor using the connection, gets
   expired after JP_HOLDTIME, unless it later gets refreshed by
   receiving new Join/Prunes.

   The value of JP_HOLDTIME is 215 seconds.  This value is based on
   section 4.11 of [RFC4601] which says that JP_HoldTime should be 3.5 *
   t_periodic where the default for t_periodic is 60 seconds.

4.4.  Moving from PORT to Datagram Mode

   There may be situations where an administrator decides to stop using
   PORT.  If PORT is disabled on a router interface, or a previously
   PORT enabled neighbor no longer announces any of the PORT Hello
   options, the router follows the rules in Section 4.3 for taking down
   connections and starting timers.  Next, the router SHOULD trigger a
   full state update similar to what would be done if the GenID changed
   in Datagram Mode.  The router SHOULD send Join/Prune messages for any



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   state where the router switched from PORT to Datagram Mode for the
   upstream neighbor.

4.5.  On-demand versus Pre-configured Connections

   Transport connections could be established when they are needed or
   when a router interface to other PIM neighbors has come up.  The
   advantage of on-demand Transport connection establishment is the
   reduction of router resources.  Especially in the case where there is
   no need for a full mesh of connections on a network interface.  The
   disadvantage is additional delay and queueing when a Join/Prune
   message needs to be sent and a Transport connection is not
   established yet.

   If a router interface has become operational and PIM neighbors are
   learned from Hello messages, at that time, Transport connections may
   be established.  The advantage is that a connection is ready to
   transport data by the time a Join/Prune message needs to be sent.
   The disadvantage is there can be more connections established than
   needed.  This can occur when there is a small set of RPF neighbors
   for the active distribution trees compared to the total number of
   neighbors.  Even when Transport connections are pre-established
   before they are needed, a connection can go down and an
   implementation will have to deal with an on-demand situation.

   Note that for TCP, it is the router with the lower Connection ID that
   decides whether to open a connection immediately, or on-demand.  The
   router with the higher Connection ID SHOULD only initiate a
   connection on-demand.  That is, if it needs to send a Join/Prune
   message and there is no currently established connection.

   Therefore, this specification RECOMMENDS but does not mandate the use
   of on-demand Transport connection establishment.

4.6.  Possible Hello Suppression Considerations

   Based on this specification, a Transport connection cannot be
   established until a Hello message is received.  One reason for this
   is to determine if the PIM neighbor supports this specification and
   the other is to determine the remote address to use to establish the
   Transport connection.

   There are cases where it is desirable to suppress entirely the
   transmission of Hello messages.  In this case, it is outside the
   scope of this document on how to determine if the PIM neighbor
   supports this specification as well as an out-of-band (outside of the
   PIM protocol) method to determine the remote address to establish the
   Transport connection.



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


4.7.  Avoiding a Pair of TCP Connections between Neighbors

   To ensure that there is only one TCP connection between a pair of PIM
   neighbors, the following set of rules MUST be followed.  Note that
   this section applies only to TCP, for SCTP this is not an issue.  Let
   A and B be two PIM neighbors where A's Connection ID is numerically
   smaller than B's Connection ID, and each is known to the other as
   having a potential PIM adjacency relationship.

   At node A:

   o  If there is already an established TCP connection to B, on the
      PIM-over-TCP port, then A MUST NOT attempt to establish a new
      connection to B. Rather it uses the established connection to send
      Join/Prune messages to B. (This is independent of which node
      initiated the connection.)

   o  If A has initiated a connection to B, but the connection is still
      in the process of being established, then A MUST refuse any
      connection on the PIM-over-TCP port from B.

   o  At any time when A does not have a connection to B which is either
      established or in the process of being established, A MUST accept
      connections from B.

   At node B:

   o  If there is already an established TCP connection to A, on the
      PIM-over-TCP port, then B MUST NOT attempt to establish a new
      connection to A. Rather it uses the established connection to send
      Join/Prune messages to A. (This is independent of which node
      initiated the connection.)

   o  If B has initiated a connection to A, but the connection is still
      in the process of being established, then if A initiates a
      connection too, B MUST accept the connection initiated by A and
      must release the connection which it (B) initiated.














Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


5.  PORT Message Definition

   It may be desirable for scaling purposes to allow Join/Prune messages
   from different PIM protocol families to be sent over the same
   Transport connection.  Also, it may be desirable to have a set of
   Join/Prune messages for one address-family sent over a Transport
   connection that is established over a different address-family
   network layer.

   To be able to do this we need a common PORT message format.  This
   will provide both record boundary and demux points when sending over
   a stream protocol like TCP/SCTP.

   A PORT message may contain PORT options, see Section 5.3.  We will
   define two PORT options for carrying PIM Join/Prune messages.  One
   for IPv4 and one for IPv6.  For each PIM Join/Prune message to be
   sent over the Transport connection, we send a PORT Join/Prune message
   containing exactly one such option.

   Each PORT message will have the Type/Length/Value format.  Multiple
   different TLV types can be sent over the same Transport connection.

   To make sure PIM Join/Prune messages are delivered as soon as the TCP
   transport layer receives the Join/Prune buffer, the TCP Push flag
   will be set in all outgoing Join/Prune messages sent over a TCP
   transport connection.

   PORT messages will be sent using destination TCP port number 8471.
   When using SCTP as the reliable transport, destination port number
   8471 will be used.  See Section 10 for IANA considerations.

   PORT messages are error checked.  This includes a bad PIM checksum,
   illegal type fields, illegal addresses or a truncated message.  If
   any parsing errors occur in a PORT message, it is skipped, and we
   proceed to any following PORT messages.

   The TLV type field is 16 bits.  The range 61440 - 65535 is for
   experimental use [RFC3692].

   This document defines two message types.











Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


5.1.  PORT Join/Prune Message

   PORT Join/Prune Message

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          Type = 1             |        Message Length         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Reserved                       |  Exp  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           Interface                           |
       |                               ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    PORT Option Type           |      Option Value Length      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             Value                             |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       \                               .                               \
       /                               .                               /
       \                               .                               \
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    PORT Option Type           |      Option Value Length      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             Value                             |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The PORT Join/Prune Message is used for sending a PIM Join/Prune.

   Message Length:   Length in bytes for the value part of the Type/
      Length/Value encoding.  If no PORT Options were included, the
      length would be 12.  If n PORT Options with Option Value lengths
      L1, L2, ..., Ln are included, the message length will be 12 + 4*n
      + L1 + L2 + ... + Ln.

   Reserved:   Set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.

   Exp:   For experimental use [RFC3692].







Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   Interface ID:   This MUST be the Interface ID of the Interface ID
      Hello option contained in the PIM Hello messages the PIM router is
      sending to the PIM neighbor.  It indicates to the PIM neighbor
      what interface to associate the Join/Prune with.  The Interface ID
      allows us to do connection sharing.

   PORT Options:   The message MUST contain exactly one PIM Join/Prune
      Port Option, either one PIM IPv4 Join/Prune or one PIM IPv6 Join/
      Prune.  It MUST NOT contain both.  It MAY contain additional
      options not defined in this document.  A router receiving a PORT
      Join/Prune message containing unknown options MUST ignore the
      entire PORT message.  See Section 5.3 for option definitions.

5.2.  PORT Keep-alive Message

   PORT Keep-alive Message

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          Type = 2             |        Message Length         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Reserved                       |  Exp  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Holdtime            |       PORT Option Type        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Option Value Length      |            Value              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+              .                +
       |                                              .                |
       |                                              .                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       \                               .                               \
       /                               .                               /
       \                               .                               \
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    PORT Option Type           |      Option Value Length      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             Value                             |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The PORT Keep-alive Message is used to regularly send PORT messages
   to verify that a connection is alive.  They are used when other PORT
   messages are not sent at the desired frequency.





Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   Message Length:   Length in bytes for the value part of the Type/
      Length/Value encoding.  If no PORT Options were included, the
      length would be 6.  If n PORT Options with Option Value lengths
      L1, L2, ..., Ln are included, the message length will be 6 + 4*n +
      L1 + L2 + ... + Ln.

   Reserved:   Set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.

   Exp:   For experimental use [RFC3692].

   Holdtime:   This specifies a Holdtime in seconds for the connection.
      A non-zero value means that the connection SHOULD be gracefully
      shut down if no further PORT messages are received within the
      specified time.  This is measured on the receiving side by
      measuring the time from one PORT message has been processed until
      the next has been processed.  Note that this MUST be done for any
      PORT message, not just keep-alive messages.  A hold time of 0
      disables the keep-alive mechanism.

   PORT Options:   A keep-alive message MUST NOT contain any of the
      options defined in this document.  It MAY contain other options
      not defined in this document.  Unknown options MUST be ignored.
      See Section 5.3 for option definitions.

5.3.  PORT Options

   Each PORT Option is a TLV.  The type is 16 bits.  PORT Option types
   are assigned by IANA, except the range 61440 - 65535 which is for
   experimental use [RFC3692].  The length specifies the length of the
   value in bytes.  Below are the two options defined in this document.

   PIM IPv4 Join/Prune Option

   PIM IPv4 Join/Prune Option Format

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      PORT Option Type = 1     |      Option Value Length      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   PIMv2 Join/Prune Message                    |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The IPv4 Join/Prune Option is used to carry a PIMv2 Join/Prune
   message that has all IPv4 encoded addresses in the PIM payload.



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   Option Value Length:   The number of bytes that make up the PIMv2
      Join/Prune message.

   PIMv2 Join/Prune Message:   PIMv2 Join/Prune message and payload with
      no IP header in front of it.

   PIM IPv6 Join/Prune Option

   PIM IPv6 Join/Prune Option Format

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      PORT Option Type = 2     |      Option Value Length      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   PIMv2 Join/Prune Message                    |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       |                               .                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The IPv6 Join/Prune Option is used to carry a PIMv2 Join/Prune
   message that has all IPv6 encoded addresses in the PIM payload.

   Option Value Length:   The number of bytes that make up the PIMv2
      Join/Prune message.

   PIMv2 Join/Prune Message:   PIMv2 Join/Prune message and payload with
      no IP header in front of it.






















Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


6.  Explicit Tracking

   When explicit tracking is used, a router keeps track of join state
   for individual downstream neighbors on a given interface.  This is
   done for all PORT joins and prunes.  It may also be done for native
   join/prune messages, if all neighbors on the LAN have set the T bit
   of the LAN Prune Delay option.  In the discussion below we will talk
   about ET (explicit tracking) neighbors, and non-ET neighbors.  The
   set of ET neighbors MUST include the PORT neighbors.  The set of
   non-ET neighbors consists of all the non-PORT neighbors unless all
   neighbors have set the LAN Prune Delay T bit.  Then the ET neighbors
   set contains all neighbors.

   For some link-types, e.g. point-to-point, tracking neighbors is no
   different than tracking interfaces.  It may also be possible for an
   implementation to treat different downstream neighbors as being on
   different logical interfaces, even if they are on the same physical
   link.  Exactly how this is implemented and for which link types, is
   left to the implementer.

   For (*,G) and (S,G) state, the router starts forwarding traffic on an
   interface when a Join is received from a neighbor on such an
   interface.  When a non-ET neighbor sends a Prune, as specified
   [RFC4601], if no Join is sent to override this Prune before the
   expiration of the Override Timer, the upstream router concludes that
   no non-ET neighbor is interested.  If no ET neighbors are interested,
   the interface can be removed from the oif-list.  When an ET neighbor
   sends a Prune, one removes the join state for that neighbor.  If no
   other ET or non-ET neighbors are interested, the interface can be
   removed from the oif-list.  When a PORT neighbor sends a prune, there
   can be no Prune Override, since the Prune is not visible to other
   neighbors.

   For (S,G,rpt) state, the router needs to track Prune state on the
   shared tree.  It needs to know which ET neighbors have sent prunes,
   and whether any non-ET neighbors have sent prunes.  Normally one
   would forward a packet from a source S to a group G out on an
   interface if a (*,G)-join is received, but no (S,G,rpt)-prune.  With
   ET one needs to do this check per ET neighbor.  That is, the packet
   should be forwarded unless all ET neighbors that have sent
   (*,G)-joins have also sent (S,G,rpt)-prunes, and if a non-ET neighbor
   has sent a (*,G)-join, whether there also is non-ET (S,G,rpt)-prune
   state.








Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


7.  Multiple Address-Family Support

   To allow for efficient use of router resources, one can mux Join/
   Prune messages of different address families on the same Transport
   connection.  There are two ways this can be accomplished, one using a
   common message format over a TCP connection and the other using
   multiple streams over a single SCTP connection.

   Using the common message format described previously in this
   specification, using different PORT options, both IPv4 and IPv6 based
   Join/Prune messages can be encoded within the same Transport
   connection.

   When using SCTP multi-streaming, the common message format is still
   used to convey address family information but an SCTP association is
   used, on a per-family basis, to send data concurrently for multiple
   families.  When data is sent concurrently, head of line blocking,
   which can occur when using TCP, is avoided.

































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


8.  Miscellany

   There are no changes to processing of other PIM messages like PIM
   Asserts, Grafts, Graft-Acks, Registers, and Register-Stops.  This
   goes for BSR and Auto-RP type messages as well.

   This extension is applicable only to PIM-SM, PIM-SSM and Bidir-PIM.
   It does not take requirements for PIM-DM into consideration.











































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


9.  Security Considerations

   There are several security issues related to the use of TCP or SCTP
   transports.  The attacks would consist of sending packets with a
   spoofed source address.  Either establishing a connection, or
   injecting packets into an existing connnection.  This might allow
   someone to send spoofed join/prune messages, and may also allow
   someone to reset the connection.  Mechanisms that help protect
   against this are discussed in Section 4.1).

   For authentication one may for TCP use TCP-AO [RFC5925], and for SCTP
   use Authenticated Chunks [RFC4895].  Also GTSM [RFC5082] can be used
   to help prevent spoofing.






































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


10.  IANA Considerations

   This specification makes use of a TCP port number and a SCTP port
   number for the use of PIM-Over-Reliable-Transport that has been
   allocated by IANA.  It also makes use of IANA PIM Hello Options
   allocations that should be made permanent.

10.1.  PORT Port Number

   IANA has assigned a port number that is used as a destination port
   for PORT TCP and SCTP transports.  The assigned number is 8471.

10.2.  PORT Hello Options

   In the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Hello Options registry,
   the following options are needed for PORT.

    Value    Length      Name                    Reference
   -------  ----------  -----------------------  ---------------
    27       Variable    PIM-over-TCP Capable     this document
    28       Variable    PIM-over-SCTP Capable    this document

10.3.  PORT Message Type Registry

   A registry for PORT message types is requested.  The message type is
   a 16-bit integer, with values from 0 to 65535.  An RFC is required
   for assignments in the range 0 - 61439.  This document defines one
   PORT message type.  Type 1, PORT Join/Prune Message.  The type range
   61440 - 65535 is for experimental use [RFC3692].

   The initial content of the registry should be as follows:

    Type           Name                             Reference
   -------------  -------------------------------  ---------------
    0              Reserved                         this document
    1              Join/Prune                       this document
    2              Keep-alive Message               this document
    3-61439        Unassigned
    61440-65535    Experimental                     this document

10.4.  PORT Option Type Registry

   A registry for PORT option types is requested.  The option type is a
   16-bit integer, with values from 0 to 65535.  An RFC is required for
   assignments in the range 0 - 61439.  This document defines two PORT
   option types.  Type 1, PIM IPv4 Join/Prune Message; and Type 2, PIM
   IPv6 Join/Prune Message.  The type range 61440 - 65535 is for
   experimental use [RFC3692].



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


   The initial content of the registry should be as follows:

    Type           Name                             Reference
   -------------  -------------------------------  ---------------
    0              Reserved                         this document
    1              PIM IPv4 Join/Prune Message      this document
    2              PIM IPv6 Join/Prune Message      this document
    3-61439        Unassigned
    61440-65535    Experimental                     this document










































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


11.  Contributors

   In addition to the persons listed as authors, significant
   contributions were provided by Apoorva Karan and Arjen Boers.















































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


12.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to give a special thank you and appreciation
   to Nidhi Bhaskar for her initial design and early prototype of this
   idea.

   Appreciation goes to Randall Stewart for his authoritative review and
   recommendation for using SCTP.

   Thanks also goes to the following for their ideas and commentary
   review of this specification, Mike McBride, Toerless Eckert, Yiqun
   Cai, Albert Tian, Suresh Boddapati, Nataraj Batchu, Daniel Voce, John
   Zwiebel, Yakov Rekhter, Lenny Giuliano, Gorry Fairhurst, Sameer
   Gulrajani, Thomas Morin, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Bharat Joshi, Rishabh
   Parekh, Manav Bhatia and Pekka Savola.

   A special thank you goes to Eric Rosen for his very detailed review
   and commentary.  Many of his comments are reflected as text in this
   specification.
































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-pim-hello-intid]
              Gulrajani, S. and S. Venaas, "An Interface ID Hello Option
              for PIM", draft-ietf-pim-hello-intid-01 (work in
              progress), June 2011.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC4895]  Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
              "Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, August 2007.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
              (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.

13.2.  Informative References

   [AFI]      IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
              NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, February 2007.

   [HELLO-OPT]
              IANA, "PIM Hello Options", PIM-HELLO-OPTIONS per
              RFC4601 http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-hello-options,
              March 2007.

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers



Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.


















































Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft   A Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM        June 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: dino@cisco.com


   IJsbrand Wijnands
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: ice@cisco.com


   Stig Venaas
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: stig@cisco.com


   Maria Napierala
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Drive
   Middletown, New Jersey  07748>
   USA

   Email: mnapierala@att.com















Farinacci, et al.       Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 33]


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