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

Versions: (draft-xu-softwire-mesh-multicast) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RFC 8638

Network Working Group                                              M. Xu
Internet-Draft                                                    Y. Cui
Expires: January 15, 2013                                          J. Wu
                                                                 S. Yang
                                                     Tsinghua University
                                                                 C. Metz
                                                             G. Shepherd
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           July 14, 2012


                        Softwire Mesh Multicast
                 draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-03

Abstract

   The Internet needs to support IPv4 and IPv6 packets.  Both address
   families and their attendant protocol suites support multicast of the
   single-source and any-source varieties.  As part of the transition to
   IPv6, there will be scenarios where a backbone network running one IP
   address family internally (referred to as internal IP or I-IP) will
   provide transit services to attached client networks running another
   IP address family (referred to as external IP or E-IP).  It is
   expected that the I-IP backbone will offer unicast and multicast
   transit services to the client E-IP networks.

   Softwire Mesh is a solution to E-IP unicast and multicast support
   across an I-IP backbone.  This document describes the mechanisms for
   supporting Internet-style multicast across a set of E-IP and I-IP
   networks supporting softwire mesh.


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 January 15, 2013.



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

























Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Scenarios of Interest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  IPv4-over-IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  IPv6-over-IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  IPv4-over-IPv6 Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Mechanism Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Group Address Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Source Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  Routing Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  IPv6-over-IPv4 Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  Mechanism Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Group Address Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Source Address Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Routing Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  Actions performed by AFBR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.1.  E-IP (*,G) state maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2.  E-IP (S,G) state maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3.  I-IP (S',G') state maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.4.  E-IP (S,G,rpt) state maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.5.  Inter-AFBR signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.6.  Process and forward multicast data . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.7.  SPT switchover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.1.  Other PIM Message Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.2.  Selecting a Tunneling Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.3.  TTL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.4.  Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26














Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


1.  Introduction

   The Internet needs to support IPv4 and IPv6 packets.  Both address
   families and their attendant protocol suites support multicast of the
   single-source and any-source varieties.  As part of the transition to
   IPv6, there will be scenarios where a backbone network running one IP
   address family internally (referred to as internal IP or I-IP) will
   provide transit services to attached client networks running another
   IP address family (referred to as external IP or E-IP).

   The preferred solution is to leverage the multicast functions
   inherent in the I-IP backbone, to efficiently and scalably forward
   client E-IP multicast packets inside an I-IP core tree, which roots
   at one or more ingress AFBR nodes and branches out to one or more
   egress AFBR leaf nodes.

   [6] outlines the requirements for the softwires mesh scenario
   including the multicast.  It is straightforward to envisage that
   client E-IP multicast sources and receivers will reside in different
   client E-IP networks connected to an I-IP backbone network.  This
   requires that the client E-IP source-rooted or shared tree should
   traverse the I-IP backbone network.

   One method to accomplish this is to re-use the multicast VPN approach
   outlined in [10].  MVPN-like schemes can support the softwire mesh
   scenario and achieve a "many-to-one" mapping between the E-IP client
   multicast trees and the transit core multicast trees.  The advantage
   of this approach is that the number of trees in the I-IP backbone
   network scales less than linearly with the number of E-IP client
   trees.  Corporate enterprise networks and by extension multicast VPNs
   have been known to run applications that create a large amount of
   (S,G) states.  Aggregation at the edge contains the (S,G) states that
   need to be maintained by the network operator supporting the customer
   VPNs.  The disadvantage of this approach is the possible inefficient
   bandwidth and resource utilization when multicast packets are
   delivered to a receiver AFBR with no attached E-IP receivers.

   Internet-style multicast is somewhat different in that the trees tend
   to be relatively sparse and source-rooted.  The need for multicast
   aggregation at the edge (where many customer multicast trees are
   mapped into a few or one backbone multicast trees) does not exist and
   to date has not been identified.  Thus the need for a basic or closer
   alignment with E-IP and I-IP multicast procedures emerges.

   A framework on how to support such methods is described in [8].  In
   this document, a more detailed discussion supporting the "one-to-one"
   mapping schemes for the IPv6 over IPv4 and IPv4 over IPv6 scenarios
   will be discussed.



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


2.  Terminology

   An example of a softwire mesh network supporting multicast is
   illustrated in Figure 1.  A multicast source S is located in one E-IP
   client network, while candidate E-IP group receivers are located in
   the same or different E-IP client networks that all share a common
   I-IP transit network.  When E-IP sources and receivers are not local
   to each other, they can only communicate with each other through the
   I-IP core.  There may be several E-IP sources for some multicast
   group residing in different client E-IP networks.  In the case of
   shared trees, the E-IP sources, receivers and RPs might be located in
   different client E-IP networks.  In a simple case the resources of
   the I-IP core are managed by a single operator although the inter-
   provider case is not precluded.


                 ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                |         |          |         |   --------
                |  E-IP   |          |  E-IP   |--|Source S|
                | network |          | network |   --------
                 ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                    |                    |
                   AFBR             upstream AFBR
                    |                    |
                  __+____________________+__
                 /   :   :           :   :  \
                |    :      :      :     :   |  E-IP Multicast
                |    : I-IP transit core :   |  packets should
                |    :     :       :     :   |  get across the
                |    :   :            :  :   | I-IP transit core
                 \_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
                     +                   +
                downstream AFBR    downstream AFBR
                     |                   |
                  ._._._._            ._._._._
     --------    |        |          |        |   --------
    |Receiver|-- |  E-IP  |          |  E-IP  |--|Receiver|
     --------    |network |          |network |   --------
                  ._._._._            ._._._._


                Figure 1: Softwire Mesh Multicast Framework

   Terminology used in this document:

   o Address Family Border Router (AFBR) - A dual-stack router
   interconnecting two or more networks using different IP address
   families.  In the context of softwire mesh multicast, the AFBR runs



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   E-IP and I-IP control planes to maintain E-IP and I-IP multicast
   states respectively and performs the appropriate encapsulation/
   decapsulation of client E-IP multicast packets for transport across
   the I-IP core.  An AFBR will act as a source and/or receiver in an
   I-IP multicast tree.

   o Upstream AFBR: The AFBR router that is located on the upper reaches
   of a multicast data flow.

   o Downstream AFBR: The AFBR router that is located on the lower
   reaches of a multicast data flow.

   o I-IP (Internal IP): This refers to the form of IP (i.e., either
   IPv4 or IPv6) that is supported by the core (or backbone) network.
   An I-IPv6 core network runs IPv6 and an I-IPv4 core network runs
   IPv4.

   o E-IP (External IP): This refers to the form of IP (i.e. either IPv4
   or IPv6) that is supported by the client network(s) attached to the
   I-IP transit core.  An E-IPv6 client network runs IPv6 and an E-IPv4
   client network runs IPv4.

   o I-IP core tree: A distribution tree rooted at one or more AFBR
   source nodes and branched out to one or more AFBR leaf nodes.  An
   I-IP core tree is built using standard IP or MPLS multicast signaling
   protocols operating exclusively inside the I-IP core network.  An
   I-IP core tree is used to forward E-IP multicast packets belonging to
   E-IP trees across the I-IP core.  Another name for an I-IP core tree
   is multicast or multipoint softwire.

   o E-IP client tree: A distribution tree rooted at one or more hosts
   or routers located inside a client E-IP network and branched out to
   one or more leaf nodes located in the same or different client E-IP
   networks.

   o uPrefix64: The /96 unicast IPv6 prefix for constructing IPv4-
   embedded IPv6 source address.














Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


3.  Scenarios of Interest

   This section describes the two different scenarios where softwires
   mesh multicast will apply.

3.1.  IPv4-over-IPv6


                   ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                  |  IPv4   |          |  IPv4   |   --------
                  | Client  |          | Client  |--|Source S|
                  | network |          | network |   --------
                   ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                      |                    |
                     AFBR             upstream AFBR
                      |                    |
                    __+____________________+__
                   /   :   :           :   :  \
                  |    :      :      :     :   |
                  |    : IPv6 transit core :   |
                  |    :     :       :     :   |
                  |    :   :            :  :   |
                   \_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
                       +                   +
                  downstream AFBR     downstream AFBR
                       |                   |
                    ._._._._            ._._._._
       --------    |  IPv4  |          |  IPv4  |   --------
      |Receiver|-- | Client |          | Client |--|Receiver|
       --------    | network|          | network|   --------
                    ._._._._            ._._._._


                     Figure 2: IPv4-over-IPv6 Scenario

   In this scenario, the E-IP client networks run IPv4 and I-IP core
   runs IPv6.  This scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.

   Because of the much larger IPv6 group address space, it will not be a
   problem to map individual client E-IPv4 tree to a specific I-IPv6
   core tree.  This simplifies operations on the AFBR because it becomes
   possible to algorithmically map an IPv4 group/source address to an
   IPv6 group/source address and vice-versa.

   The IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario is an emerging requirement as network
   operators build out native IPv6 backbone networks.  These networks
   naturally support native IPv6 services and applications but it is
   with near 100% certainty that legacy IPv4 networks handling unicast



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   and multicast should be accommodated.

3.2.  IPv6-over-IPv4


                    ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                   |  IPv6   |          |  IPv6   |   --------
                   | Client  |          | Client  |--|Source S|
                   | network |          | network |   --------
                    ._._._._.            ._._._._.
                       |                    |
                      AFBR             upstream AFBR
                       |                    |
                     __+____________________+__
                    /   :   :           :   :  \
                   |    :      :      :     :   |
                   |    : IPv4 transit core :   |
                   |    :     :       :     :   |
                   |    :   :            :  :   |
                    \_._._._._._._._._._._._._./
                        +                   +
                   downstream AFBR    downstream AFBR
                        |                   |
                     ._._._._            ._._._._
        --------    |  IPv6  |          |  IPv6  |   --------
       |Receiver|-- | Client |          | Client |--|Receiver|
        --------    | network|          | network|   --------
                     ._._._._            ._._._._


                     Figure 3: IPv6-over-IPv4 Scenario

   In this scenario, the E-IP Client Networks run IPv6 while the I-IP
   core runs IPv4.  This scenario is illustrated in Figure 3.

   IPv6 multicast group addresses are longer than IPv4 multicast group
   addresses.  It will not be possible to perform an algorithmic IPv6 -
   to - IPv4 address mapping without the risk of multiple IPv6 group
   addresses mapped to the same IPv4 address resulting in unnecessary
   bandwidth and resource consumption.  Therefore additional efforts
   will be required to ensure that client E-IPv6 multicast packets can
   be injected into the correct I-IPv4 multicast trees at the AFBRs.
   This clear mismatch in IPv6 and IPv4 group address lengths means that
   it will not be possible to perform a one-to-one mapping between IPv6
   and IPv4 group addresses unless the IPv6 group address is scoped.

   As mentioned earlier, this scenario is common in the MVPN
   environment.  As native IPv6 deployments and multicast applications



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   emerge from the outer reaches of the greater public IPv4 Internet, it
   is envisaged that the IPv6 over IPv4 softwire mesh multicast scenario
   will be a necessary feature supported by network operators.
















































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


4.  IPv4-over-IPv6 Mechanism

4.1.  Mechanism Overview

   Routers in the client E-IPv4 networks contain routes to all other
   client E-IPv4 networks.  Through the set of known and deployed
   mechanisms, E-IPv4 hosts and routers have discovered or learnt of
   (S,G) or (*,G) IPv4 addresses.  Any I-IPv6 multicast state
   instantiated in the core is referred to as (S',G') or (*,G') and is
   certainly separated from E-IPv4 multicast state.

   Suppose a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM Join/Prune message
   from the E-IPv4 network for either an (S,G) tree or a (*,G) tree.
   The AFBR can translate the E-IPv4 PIM message into an I-IPv6 PIM
   message with the latter being directed towards I-IP IPv6 address of
   the upstream AFBR.  When the I-IPv6 PIM message arrives at the
   upstream AFBR, it should be translated back into an E-IPv4 PIM
   message.  The result of these actions is the construction of E-IPv4
   trees and a corresponding I-IP tree in the I-IP network.

   In this case it is incumbent upon the AFBR routers to perform PIM
   message conversions in the control plane and IP group address
   conversions or mappings in the data plane.  It becomes possible to
   devise an algorithmic one-to-one IPv4-to-IPv6 address mapping at
   AFBRs.

4.2.  Group Address Mapping

   For IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario, a simple algorithmic mapping between
   IPv4 multicast group addresses and IPv6 group addresses is supported.
   [11] has already defined an applicable format.  Figure 4 is the
   reminder of the format:



     |   8    |  4 |  4 |    16     |  4 |       60         |    32    |
     +--------+----+----+-----------+----+------------------+----------+
     |11111111|0011|scop|00.......00|64IX|   sub-group-id   |v4 address|
     +--------+----+----+-----------+----+------------------+----------+
                                                   +-+-+-+-+
     IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection bits (64IX):        |M|resvd|
                                                   +-+-+-+-+
     "resvd" are reserved bits.


      Figure 4: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Multicast Address Format: SSM Mode

   The high order bits of the I-IPv6 address range will be fixed for



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   mapping purposes.  With this scheme, each IPv4 multicast address can
   be mapped into an IPv6 multicast address(with the assigned prefix),
   and each IPv6 multicast address with the assigned prefix can be
   mapped into IPv4 multicast address.

4.3.  Source Address Mapping

   There are two kinds of multicast --- ASM and SSM.  Considering that
   I-IP network and E-IP network may support different kind of
   multicast, the source address translation rules could be very complex
   to support all possible scenarios.  But since SSM can be implemented
   with a strict subset of the PIM-SM protocol mechanisms [5], we can
   treat I-IP core as SSM-only to make it as simple as possible, then
   there remains only two scenarios to be discussed in detail:

   o  E-IP network supports SSM

      One possible way to make sure that the translated I-IPv6 PIM
      message reaches upstream AFBR is to set S' to a virtual IPv6
      address that leads to the upstream AFBR.  Figure 5 is the
      recommended address format based on [9]:



      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96-----------127|
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |     prefix    |v4(32)         | u | suffix    |source address |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |<------------------uPrefix64------------------>|


          Figure 5: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual Source Address Format


      In this address format, the "prefix" field contains a "Well-Known"
      prefix or an ISP-defined prefix.  An existing "Well-Known" prefix
      is 64:ff9b, which is defined in [9]; "v4" field is the IP address
      of one of upstream AFBR's E-IPv4 interfaces; "u" field is defined
      in [4], and MUST be set to zero; "suffix" field is reserved for
      future extensions and SHOULD be set to zero; "source address"
      field stores the original S. We call the overall /96 prefix
      ("prefix" field and "v4" field and "u" field and "suffix" field
      altogether) "uPrefix64".


   o  E-IP network supports ASM




Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


      The (S,G) source list entry and the (*,G) source list entry only
      differ in that the latter have both the WC and RPT bits of the
      Encoded-Source-Address set, while the former all cleared (See
      Section 4.9.5.1 of [5]).  So we can translate source list entries
      in (*,G) messages into source list entries in (S'G') messages by
      applying the format specified in Figure 5 and setting both the WC
      and RPT bits at upstream AFBRs, and translate them back at
      upstream AFBRs vice-versa.


4.4.  Routing Mechanism

   In the mesh multicast scenario, routing information is required to be
   distributed among AFBRs to make sure that PIM messages that a
   downstream AFBR propagates reach the right upstream AFBR.

   To make it feasible, the /32 prefix in "IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Virtual
   Source Address Format" must be known to every AFBR, and every AFBR
   should not only announce the IP address of one of its E-IPv4
   interfaces presented in the "v4" field to other AFBRs by MPBGP, but
   also announce the corresponding uPrefix64 to the I-IPv6 network.
   Since every IP address of upstream AFBR's E-IPv4 interface is
   different from each other, every uPrefix64 that AFBR announces should
   be different either, and uniquely identifies each AFBR. "uPrefix64"
   is an IPv6 prefix, and the distribution of it is the same as the
   distribution in the traditional mesh unicast scenario.  But since
   "v4" field is an E-IPv4 address, and BGP messages are NOT tunneled
   through softwires or through any other mechanism as specified in [8],
   AFBRs MUST be able to transport and encode/decode BGP messages that
   are carried over I-IPv6, whose NLRI and NH are of E-IPv4 address
   family.

   In this way, when a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM (S,G)
   message, it can translate this message into (S',G') by looking up the
   IP address of the corresponding AFBR's E-IPv4 interface.  Since the
   uPrefix64 of S' is unique, and is known to every router in the I-IPv6
   network, the translated message will eventually arrive at the
   corresponding upstream AFBR, and the upstream AFBR can translate the
   message back to (S,G).  When a downstream AFBR receives an E-IPv4 PIM
   (*,G) message, S' can be generated according to the format specified
   in Figure 4, with "source address" field set to *(the IPv4 address of
   RP).  The translated message will eventually arrive at the
   corresponding upstream AFBR.  Since every PIM router within a PIM
   domain must be able to map a particular multicast group address to
   the same RP (see Section 4.7 of [5]), when this upstream AFBR checks
   the "source address" field of the message, it'll find the IPv4
   address of RP, so this upstream AFBR judges that this is originally a
   (*,G) message, then it translates the message back to the (*,G)



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   message and processes it.


















































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


5.  IPv6-over-IPv4 Mechanism

5.1.  Mechanism Overview

   Routers in the client E-IPv6 networks contain routes to all other
   client E-IPv6 networks.  Through the set of known and deployed
   mechanisms, E-IPv6 hosts and routers have discovered or learnt of
   (S,G) or (*,G) IPv6 addresses.  Any I-IP multicast state instantiated
   in the core is referred to as (S',G') or (*,G') and is certainly
   separated from E-IP multicast state.

   This particular scenario introduces unique challenges.  Unlike the
   IPv4-over-IPv6 scenario, it's impossible to map all of the IPv6
   multicast address space into the IPv4 address space to address the
   one-to-one Softwire Multicast requirement.  To coordinate with the
   "IPv4-over-IPv6" scenario and keep the solution as simple as
   possible, one possible solution to this problem is to limit the scope
   of the E-IPv6 source addresses for mapping, such as applying a "Well-
   Known" prefix or an ISP-defined prefix.

5.2.  Group Address Mapping

   To keep one-to-one group address mapping simple, the group address
   range of E-IP IPv6 can be reduced in a number of ways to limit the
   scope of addresses that need to be mapped into the I-IP IPv4 space.

   A recommended multicast address format is defined in [11].  The high
   order bits of the E-IPv6 address range will be fixed for mapping
   purposes.  With this scheme, each IPv4 multicast address can be
   mapped into an IPv6 multicast address(with the assigned prefix), and
   each IPv6 multicast address with the assigned prefix can be mapped
   into IPv4 multicast address.

5.3.  Source Address Mapping

   There are two kinds of multicast --- ASM and SSM.  Considering that
   I-IP network and E-IP network may support different kind of
   multicast, the source address translation rules could be very complex
   to support all possible scenarios.  But since SSM can be implemented
   with a strict subset of the PIM-SM protocol mechanisms [5], we can
   treat I-IP core as SSM-only to make it as simple as possible, then
   there remains only two scenarios to be discussed in detail:

   o  E-IP network supports SSM

      To make sure that the translated I-IPv4 PIM message reaches the
      upstream AFBR, we need to set S' to an IPv4 address that leads to
      the upstream AFBR.  But due to the non-"one-to-one" mapping of



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


      E-IPv6 to I-IPv4 unicast address, the upstream AFBR is unable to
      remap the I-IPv4 source address to the original E-IPv6 source
      address without any constraints.

      We apply a fixed IPv6 prefix and static mapping to solve this
      problem.  A recommended source address format is defined in [9].
      Figure 6 is the reminder of the format:



      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      | 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96-----------127|
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      |                     uPrefix64                 |source address |
      +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+


              Figure 6: IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Source Address Format


      In this address format, the "uPrefix64" field starts with a "Well-
      Known" prefix or an ISP-defined prefix.  An existing "Well-Known"
      prefix is 64:ff9b/32, which is defined in [9]; "source address"
      field is the corresponding I-IPv4 source address.


   o  E-IP network supports ASM

      The (S,G) source list entry and the (*,G) source list entry only
      differ in that the latter have both the WC and RPT bits of the
      Encoded-Source-Address set, while the former all cleared (See
      Section 4.9.5.1 of [5]).  So we can translate source list entries
      in (*,G) messages into source list entries in (S'G') messages by
      applying the format specified in Figure 5 and setting both the WC
      and RPT bits at upstream AFBRs, and translate them back at
      upstream AFBRs vice-versa.  Here, the E-IPv6 address of RP MUST
      follow the format specified in Figure 6.  RP' is the upstream AFBR
      that locates between RP and the downstream AFBR.

5.4.  Routing Mechanism

   In the mesh multicast scenario, routing information is required to be
   distributed among AFBRs to make sure that PIM messages that a
   downstream AFBR propagates reach the right upstream AFBR.

   To make it feasible, the /96 uPrefix64 must be known to every AFBR,
   every E-IPv6 address of sources that support mesh multicast MUST
   follow the format specified in Figure 6, and the corresponding



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   upstream AFBR of this source should announce the I-IPv4 address in
   "source address" field of this source's IPv6 address to the I-IPv4
   network.  Since uPrefix64 is static and unique in IPv6-over-IPv4
   scenario, there is no need to distribute it using BGP.  The
   distribution of "source address" field of multicast source addresses
   is a pure I-IPv4 process and no more specification is needed.

   In this way, when a downstream AFBR receives a (S,G) message, it can
   translate the message into (S',G') by simply taking off the prefix in
   S. Since S' is known to every router in I-IPv4 network, the
   translated message will eventually arrive at the corresponding
   upstream AFBR, and the upstream AFBR can translate the message back
   to (S,G) by appending the prefix to S'.  When a downstream AFBR
   receives a (*,G) message, it can translate it into (S',G') by simply
   taking off the prefix in *(the E-IPv6 address of RP).  Since S' is
   known to every router in I-IPv4 network, the translated message will
   eventually arrive at RP'.  And since every PIM router within a PIM
   domain must be able to map a particular multicast group address to
   the same RP (see Section 4.7 of [5]), RP' knows that S' is the mapped
   I-IPv4 address of RP, so RP' will translate the message back to (*,G)
   by appending the prefix to S' and propagate it towards RP.






























Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


6.  Actions performed by AFBR

   The following actions are performed by AFBRs:

6.1.  E-IP (*,G) state maintenance

   When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(*,G) message to an I-IP
   upstream router, the AFBR MUST translate Join/Prune(*,G) messages
   into Join/Prune(S',G') messages following the rules specified above,
   then send the latter.

6.2.  E-IP (S,G) state maintenance

   When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(S,G) message to an I-IP
   upstream router, the AFBR MUST translate Join/Prune(S,G) messages
   into Join/Prune(S',G') messages following the rules specified above,
   then send the latter.

6.3.  I-IP (S',G') state maintenance

   It is possible that there runs a non-transit I-IP PIM-SSM in the I-IP
   transit core.  Since the translated source address starts with the
   unique "Well-Known" prefix or the ISP-defined prefix that should not
   be used otherwise, mesh multicast won't influence non-transit PIM-SM
   multicast at all.  When one AFBR receives an I-IP (S',G') message, it
   should check S'.  If S' starts with the unique prefix, it means that
   this message is actually a translated E-IP (S,G) or (*,G) message,
   then the AFBR should translate this message back to E-IP PIM message
   and process it.

6.4.  E-IP (S,G,rpt) state maintenance

   When an AFBR wishes to propagate a Join/Prune(S,G,rpt) message to an
   I-IP upstream router, the AFBR MUST do as specified in Section 6.5
   and Section 6.6.

6.5.  Inter-AFBR signaling

   Assume that one downstream AFBR has joined a RPT of (*,G) and a SPT
   of (S,G), and decide to perform a SPT switchover.  According to [5],
   it should propagate a Prune(S,G,rpt) message along with the
   periodical Join(*,G) message upstream towards RP.  Unfortunately,
   routers in I-IP transit core are not supposed to understand (S,G,rpt)
   messages since I-IP transit core is treated as SSM-only.  As a
   result, this downstream AFBR is unable to prune S from this RPT, then
   it will receive two copies of the same data of (S,G).  In order to
   solve this problem, we introduce a new mechanism for downstream AFBRs
   to inform upstream AFBRs of pruning any given S from RPT.



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   When a downstream AFBR wishes to propagate a (S,G,rpt) message
   upstream router, it should encapsulate the (S,G,rpt) message, then
   unicast the encapsulated message to the corresponding upstream AFBR,
   which we call "RP'".

   When RP' receives this encapsulated message, it should decapsulate
   this message as what it does in the unicast scenario, and get the
   original (S,G,rpt) message.  The incoming interface of this message
   may be different from the outgoing interface which propagates
   multicast data to the corresponding downstream AFBR, and there may be
   other downstream AFBRs that need to receive multicast data of (S,G)
   from this incoming interface, so RP' should not simply process this
   message as specified in [5] on the incoming interface.

   To solve this problem, and keep the solution as simple as possible,
   we introduce an "interface agent" to process all the encapsulated
   (S,G,rpt) messages the upstream AFBR receives, and prune S from the
   RPT of group G when no downstream AFBR wants to receive multicast
   data of (S,G) along the RPT.  In this way, we do insure that
   downstream AFBRs won't miss any multicast data that they needs, at
   the cost of duplicated multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT received
   by SPT-switched-over downstream AFBRs, if there exists at least one
   downstream AFBR that hasn't yet sent Prune(S,G,rpt) messages to the
   upstream AFBR.  The following diagram shows an example of how an
   "interface agent" may be implemented:



          +----------------------------------------+
          |                                        |
          |       +-----------+----------+         |
          |       |  PIM-SM   |    UDP   |         |
          |       +-----------+----------+         |
          |          ^                |            |
          |          |                |            |
          |          |                v            |
          |       +----------------------+         |
          |       |       I/F Agent      |         |
          |       +----------------------+         |
          |   PIM    ^                | multicast  |
          | messages |                |   data     |
          |          |  +-------------+---+        |
          |       +--+--|-----------+     |        |
          |       |     v           |     v        |
          |     +--------- +     +----------+      |
          |     | I-IP I/F |     | I-IP I/F |      |
          |     +----------+     +----------+      |
          |        ^     |          ^     |        |



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


          |        |     |          |     |        |
          +--------|-----|----------|-----|--------+
                   |     v          |     v



             Figure 7: Interface Agent Implementation Example

   In this example, the interface agent has two responsibilities: In the
   control plane, it should work as a real interface that has joined
   (*,G) in representative of all the I-IP interfaces who should have
   been outgoing interfaces of (*,G) state machine, and process the
   (S,G,rpt) messages received from all the I-IP interfaces.  The
   interface agent maintains downstream (S,G,rpt) state machines of
   every downstream AFBR, and submits Prune(S,G,rpt) messages to the
   PIM-SM module only when every (S,G,rpt) state machine is at Prune(P)
   or PruneTmp(P') state, which means that no downstream AFBR wants to
   receive multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT of G. Once a (S,G,rpt)
   state machine changes to NoInfo(NI) state, which means that the
   corresponding downstream AFBR has changed it mind to receive
   multicast data of (S,G) along the RPT again, the interface agent
   should send a Join(S,G,rpt) to PIM-SM module immediately; In the data
   plane, upon receiving a multicast data packet, the interface agent
   should encapsulate it at first, then propagate the encapsulated
   packet onto every I-IP interface.

   NOTICE: There may exist an E-IP neighbor of RP' that has joined the
   RPT of G, so the per-interface state machine for receiving E-IP Join/
   Prune(S,G,rpt) messages should still take effect.

6.6.  Process and forward multicast data

   On receiving multicast data from upstream routers, the AFBR looks up
   its forwarding table to check the IP address of each outgoing
   interface.  If there exists at least one outgoing interface whose IP
   address family is different from the incoming interface, the AFBR
   should encapsulate/decapsulate this packet and forward it to such
   outgoing interface(s), then forward the data to other outgoing
   interfaces without encapsulation/decapsulation.

   When a downstream AFBR that has already switched over to SPT of S
   receives an encapsulated multicast data packet of (S,G) along the
   RPT, it should silently drop this packet.

6.7.  SPT switchover

   After a new AFBR expresses its interest in receiving traffic destined
   for a multicast group, it will receive all the data from the RPT at



Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   first.  At this time, every downstream AFBR will receive multicast
   data from any source from this RPT, in spit of whether they have
   switched over to SPT of some source(s) or not.

   To minimize this redundancy, it's recommended that every AFBR's
   SwitchToSptDesired(S,G) function employs the "switch on first packet"
   policy.  In this way, the delay of switchover to SPT is kept as
   little as possible, and after the moment that every AFBR has
   performed the SPT switchover for every S of group G, no data will be
   forwarded in the RPT of G, thus no more redundancy will be produced.









































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


7.  Other Considerations

7.1.  Other PIM Message Types

   Apart from Join or Prune, there exists other message types including
   Register, Register-Stop, Hello and Assert.  Register and Register-
   Stop messages are sent by unicast, while Hello and Assert messages
   are only used between routers on a link to negotiate with each other.
   They don't need to be translated for forwarding, thus the process of
   these messages is out of scope for this document.

7.2.  Selecting a Tunneling Technology

   The choice of tunneling technology is a matter of policy configured
   at AFBRs.  It's recommended that all AFBRs use the same technology,
   otherwise some AFBRs may not be able to decapsulate encapsulated
   packets from other AFBRs that use a different tunneling technology.

7.3.  TTL

   The process of TTL depends on the tunneling technology, and is out of
   scope for this document.

7.4.  Fragmentation

   The encapsulation performed by upstream AFBR will increase the size
   of packets.  As a result, the outgoing I-IP link MTU may not
   accommodate the extra size.  As it's not always possible for core
   operators to increase every link's MTU, fragmentation and
   reassembling of encapsulated packets MUST be supported by AFBRs.





















Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


8.  Security Considerations

   The AFBR routers could maintain secure communications through the use
   of Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol as described in
   [RFC4301].  But when adopting some schemes that will cause heavy
   burden on routers, some attacker may use it as a tool for DDoS
   attack.












































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


9.  IANA Considerations

   When AFBRs perform address mapping, they should follow some
   predefined rules, especially the IPv6 prefix for source address
   mapping should be predefined, so that ingress AFBR and egress AFBR
   can finish the mapping procedure correctly.  The IPv6 prefix for
   translation can be unified within only the transit core, or within
   global area.  In the later condition, the prefix should be assigned
   by IANA.










































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina,
         "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000.

   [2]   Foster, B. and F. Andreasen, "Media Gateway Control Protocol
         (MGCP) Redirect and Reset Package", RFC 3991, February 2005.

   [3]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
         Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

   [4]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
         Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

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

   [6]   Li, X., Dawkins, S., Ward, D., and A. Durand, "Softwire Problem
         Statement", RFC 4925, July 2007.

   [7]   Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
         Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.

   [8]   Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
         Framework", RFC 5565, June 2009.

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

   [10]  Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs",
         RFC 6513, February 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [11]  Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Lee, Y., Venaas, S., Li, X., and M. Xu,
         "IPv6 Multicast Address Format With Embedded IPv4 Multicast
         Address", draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02
         (work in progress), May 2012.









Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Wenlong Chen, Xuan Chen, Alain Durand, Yiu Lee, Jacni Qin and Stig
   Venaas provided useful input into this document.















































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Mingwei Xu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R. China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: xmw@cernet.edu.cn


   Yong Cui
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R. China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn


   Jianping Wu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R. China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
   Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn


   Shu Yang
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R. China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: yangshu@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn











Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           softwire mesh multicast               July 2012


   Chris Metz
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-525-3275
   Email: chmetz@cisco.com


   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone: +1-541-912-9758
   Email: shep@cisco.com

































Xu, et al.              Expires January 15, 2013               [Page 27]


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