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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-mpls-multicast

Submitted to MPLS Working Group                       D. Ooms, W. Livens
                                                    B. Sales, M. Ramalho
INTERNET DRAFT                                                   Alcatel
<draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt>               A. Acharya, F. Griffoul
                                                                     NEC
                                                               F. Ansari
                                                               Bell Labs

                                                               May, 1999
                                                  Expires November, 1999

                   Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This document offers a framework for IP multicast deployment in an
   MPLS environment.  Issues arising when MPLS techniques are applied to
   IP multicast are overviewed.  The pros and cons of existing IP
   multicast routing protocols in the context of MPLS are described and
   the relation to the different trigger methods and label distribution
   modes are discussed.  The consequences of various layer 2 (L2)
   technologies are listed.  Both point-to-point and multi-access
   networks are considered.





Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction
   2. Layer 2 characteristics
   3. Taxonomy of IP multicast routing protocols in the context of MPLS
   3.1. Aggregation
   3.2. Flood & Prune
   3.3. Source/Shared trees
   3.4. Co-existence of Source and Shared Trees
   3.5. Uni/Bi-directional Shared Trees
   3.6. Encapsulated multicast data
   3.7. Loop-free-ness
   3.8. RPF Check
   3.9. Mapping of characteristics on existing protocols
   4. Mixed L2/L3 forwarding in a single node
   5. Taxonomy of IP multicast LSP triggers
   5.1. Request driven
   5.1.1. General
   5.1.2. Multicast routing messages
   5.1.3. Resource reservation messages
   5.2. Topology driven
   5.3. Traffic driven
   5.3.1. General
   5.3.2. An implementation example
   5.4. Combinations of triggers and label distribution modes
   6. Piggy-backing
   7. Explicit routing
   8. QoS/CoS
   8.1 DiffServ
   8.2 IntServ and RSVP
   9. Multi-access networks
   10. More issues
   10.1. TTL field
   10.2. Independent vs. Ordered Label Distribution Control
   10.3. Conservative vs. Liberal Label Retention Mode
   10.4. Downstream vs. Upstream Label Allocation
   10.5. Explicit vs. Implicit Label Distribution
   11. Security Considerations
   12. Acknowledgements




   Table of Abbreviations

   ATM     Asynchronous Transfer Node
   CBT     Core Based Tree
   CoS     Class of Service



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   DLCI    Data Link Connection Identifier
   DRrecv  Designated Router of the receiver
   DRsend  Designated Router of the sender
   DVMRP   Distant Vector Multicast Routing Protocol
   FR      Frame Relay
   IGMP    Internet Group Management Protocol
   IP      Internet Protocol
   L2      layer 2 (e.g. ATM, Frame Relay)
   L3      layer 3 (e.g. IP)
   LSP     Label Switched Path
   LSR     Label Switching Router
   LSRd    Downstream LSR
   LSRu    Upstream LSR
   MIP     Multicast Internet Protocol
   MOSPF   Multicast OSPF
   mp2mp   multipoint-to-multipoint
   p2mp    point-to-multipoint
   PIM-DM  Protocol Independent Multicast-Dense Mode
   PIM-SM  Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode
   QoS     Quality of Service
   RP      Rendezvous Point
   RPF     Reverse Path Forwarding
   RSVP    Resource reSerVation Protocol
   TCP     Transmission Control Protocol
   UDP     User Datagram Protocol
   VC      Virtual Circuit
   VCI     Virtual Circuit Identifier
   VP      Virtual Path
   VPI     Virtual Path Identifier


1. Introduction

   In an MPLS cloud the routes are determined by a L3 routing protocol.
   These routes can then be mapped onto L2 paths to enhance network
   performance.  Besides this, MPLS offers a vehicle for enhanced
   network services such as QoS/CoS, traffic engineering, etc.

   Current unicast routing protocols generate a same (optimal) shortest
   path in steady state for a certain (source, destination)-pair. Remark
   that unicast protocols can behave slightly different with regard to
   equal cost paths.

   For multicast, the optimal solution (minimum cost to interconnect N
   nodes) would impose a Steiner tree computation. Unfortunately, no
   multicast routing protocol today is able to maintain such an optimal
   tree.  Different multicast protocols will therefore, in general,
   generate different trees.



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   The discussion is focused on intra-domain multicast routing
   protocols.  Aspects of inter-domain routing are beyond the scope of
   this document.


2. Layer 2 characteristics

   Although MPLS is multiprotocol both at L3 and at L2, in practice IP
   is the only considered L3 protocol.  MPLS can run on top of several
   L2 technologies (PPP/Sonet, Ethernet, ATM, FR, ...).

   When label switching is mapped on L2 switching capabilities (e.g.
   VPI/VCI is used as label), attention is mainly focused on the mapping
   to ATM [DAVI].  ATM offers high switching capacities and QoS
   awareness, but in the context of MPLS it poses several limitations
   which are described in [DAVI].  Similar considerations are made for
   Frame Relay on L2 in [CONT].  The limitations can be summarized as:

   - Limited Label Space: either the standardized or the implemented
   number of bits available for a label can be small (e.g. VPI/VCI
   space, DLCI space), limiting the number of LSPs that can be
   established.

   - Merging: some L2 technologies or implementations of these
   technologies do not support multipoint-to-point and/or multipoint-
   to-multipoint 'connections', obstructing the merging of LSPs.

   - TTL: L2 technologies do not support a 'TTL-decrement' function.

   All three limitations can impact the implementation of multicast in
   MPLS as will be described in this document.

   When native MPLS is deployed the above limitations vanish.  Moreover
   on PPP and Ethernet links the same label can be used at the same time
   for a unicast and a multicast LSP because different EtherTypes for
   MPLS unicast and multicast are defined [ROSE].


3. Taxonomy of IP multicast routing protocols in the context of MPLS

   At the moment, an abundance of IP multicast routing protocols is
   being proposed and developed.  All these protocols have different
   characteristics (scalability, computational complexity, latency,
   control message overhead, tree type, etc...).  It is not the purpose
   of this document to give a complete taxonomy of IP multicast routing
   protocols, only their characteristics relevant to the MPLS technology
   will be addressed.




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   Following characteristics are considered:

   - Aggregation
   - Flood & Prune
   - Source/Shared trees
   - Co-existence of Source and Shared Trees
   - Uni/Bi-directional shared trees
   - Encapsulated multicast data
   - Loop-free-ness
   - RPF check

   The discussion of these characteristics will not lead to the
   selection of one superior multicast routing protocol.  It is not
   impossible that different IP multicast routing protocols will be
   deployed in the Internet.


3.1. Aggregation

   In unicast different destination addresses are aggregated to one
   entry in the routing table, yielding one FEC and one LSP.

   The granularity of multicast streams is (*, G) for a shared tree and
   (S, G) for a source tree, S being the source address and G the
   multicast group address.  Aggregation of multicast trees with
   different multicast 'destination' addresses on one LSP is a subject
   for further study.


3.2. Flood & Prune

   To establish a multicast tree some IP multicast routing protocols
   (e.g. DVMRP, PIM-DM) flood the network with multicast data.  The
   branches can then be pruned by nodes which do not want to receive the
   data of the specific multicast group.  This process is repeated
   periodically.

   Flood & Prune multicast routing protocols have some characteristics
   which significantly differ from unicast routing protocols:

   a) Volatile.  Due to the Flood & Prune nature of the protocol, very
   volatile tree structures are generated.  Solutions to map a dynamic
   L3 p2mp tree to a L2 p2mp LSP need to be efficient in terms of
   signaling overhead and LSP setup time.  The volatile L2 LSP will
   consume a lot of labels throughout the network, which is a
   disadvantage when label space is limited.

   b) Traffic-driven.  The router only creates state for a certain group



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   when data arrives for that group.  Routers also independently decide
   to remove state when an inactivity timer expires.
    - Thus LSPs can not be pre-established as is usually done in
   unicast.  To minimize the time between traffic arrival and LSP
   establishment a fast LSP setup method is favorable.
    - Since creation and deletion of a L3 route at each node is
   triggered by traffic, this suggests that the LSP associated with the
   route be setup and torn down in a traffic-driven manner as well.
    - If an LSR does not support L3 forwarding this traffic-driven
   nature even requires that the upstream LSR takes the initiative to
   create an LSP (upstream or downstream-on-demand label advertisement).


3.3. Source/Shared trees

   IP multicast routing protocols create either source trees (S, G),
   i.e. a tree per source (S) and per multicast group (G), or shared
   trees (*, G), i.e. one tree per multicast group (Figure 1).


                R1                         R1           R1
         S1    /                          /            /
          \   /                          /            /
           \ /                          /            /
            C---R2                    S1---R2      S2---R2
           / \                          \            \
          /   \                          \            \
        S2     \                          \            \
                R3                         R3           R3

                  Figure 1. Shared tree and Source trees


   The advantage of using shared trees, when label switching is applied,
   is that shared trees consume less labels than source trees (1 label
   per group versus 1 label per source and per group).

   However, mapping a shared tree end-to-end on L2 implies setting up
   multipoint-to-multipoint (mp2mp) LSPs. The problem of implementing
   mp2mp LSPs boils down to the merging problem discussed earlier.


3.4. Co-existence of Source and Shared Trees

   Some protocols support both source and shared trees (e.g. PIM-SM) and
   one router can maintain both (*, G) and (S, G) state for the same
   group G.  Two cases of state co-existence are described below.
   Assume topologies with senders Si and receivers Ri.  RP is the



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   Rendezvous Point. Ni are LSRs.  The numbers are the interface
   numbers, Reg is the Register interface.  All IGMP and PIM Join/Prune
   messages are shown in the figures.  It is also indicated whether the
   RPT-bit is set for the (S, G) state.

   1) Figure 2 shows a switchover from shared to source tree.  Assume
   that the shortest path from R1 to RP is via N1-N2-N5.  N1, the
   Designated Router of receiver R1 (DRrecv), decides to initiate a
   source tree for source S1.  After the arrival of data via the source
   tree in N2, N2 will send a prune to N5 for source S1.  State co-
   existence occurs in the node where the overlap of shared and source
   tree starts (N2) and in the node where S1 does not need forwarding on
   the shared tree anymore (N5).


                  PJ
          IJ      PJS     PJS
          -> 1  2 -> 1  2 -> 1  2
       R1-----N1------N2------N3----S1
                     3|       |3            IJ=Igmp Join
                      ||PPS   |             PJ=Pim Join (*,G)
                      |vPJ    |             PJS=Pim Join (S1,G)
           IJ     PJ  |    PJ |             PPS=Pim Prune (S1,G)
           ->     ->  |3   -> |
       R2-----N4------N5------RP----S2
             1  2    1  2    1

                                 Figure 2

   The multicast routing states created in the MRT are:

     in RP: (*,G):Reg->1   (i.e. incoming itf=Reg; outgoing itf=1)
     in N1: (*,G):2->1
     in N2: (*,G):3->1
            (S1,G):2->1
     in N3: (S1,G):2->Reg,1
     in N4: (*,G):2->1
     in N5: (*,G):2->1,3
            (S1,G)RPT-bit:2->1


   2) Figure 3 shows that even without a switchover, state co-existence
   can occur.  Multicast traffic from a sender will create (S, G) state
   in the Designated Router of the sender (DRsend; N3 in Figure 3 is the
   DRsend of S).  Each node on a shared-tree has (*, G) state.   Thus an
   on-tree DRsend has both (*, G) and (S, G) state.  If the DRsend is
   on-tree it will also send a prune for S towards the RP, creating (S,
   G) state in all nodes until the first router which has a branch (N1



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 7]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   and N2 in Figure 3).


                              S
                     PPS  PPS |
              PJ     PJ    PJ |2 PJ    IJ
            1 <- 1  3<-    <- |  <-    <-            PJ=Pim Join
          RP------N1----N2----N3----N4----R1         IJ=Igmp Join
                 ^|2   1  2  1  3  1  2              PPS=Pim Prune (S,G)
               PJ||  IJ
                 1|  <-
                  N5----R2
                    2
                                 Figure 3

   The multicast routing states created in the MRT are:

     in RP: (*,G):Reg->1   (i.e. incoming itf=Reg; outgoing itf=1)
     in N1: (*,G):1->2,3
            (S,G)RPT-bit:1->2
     in N2: (*,G):1->2
            (S,G)RPT-bit:1->none
     in N3: (*,G):1->3
            (S,G):2->Reg,3
     in N4: (*,G):1->2
     in N5: (*,G):1->2


   In the examples one can observe that two types of state co-existence
   occur:

   1) (S, G) with RPT-bit not set (N2 in Figure 2, N3 in Figure 3).  The
   (*, G) and (S, G) state have different incoming interfaces, but some
   common outgoing interfaces.  It is possible that the traffic of S
   arrives on both the (*, G) and (S, G) interfaces.  In normal L3
   forwarding the (S, G)SPT-bit entry prohibits the forwarding of the
   traffic from S arriving on the (*, G) incoming interface.  The
   traffic of S can only temporarily arrive on the incoming interfaces
   of both the (*, G) and (S, G) entries (until N5 in Figure 2 and N1 in
   Figure 3 have processed the prune messages).  To avoid the temporary
   forwarding of duplicate packets L3 forwarding can be applied in this
   type of node.  If one does not mind the temporary duplicate packets
   L2 forwarding can be applied.  In this case the (*, G) and (S, G)
   streams have to be merged into the (*, G) LSP on their common
   outgoing interfaces.

   2) (S, G) with RPT-bit set (N5 in Figure 2, N1 in Figure 3).  The (*,
   G) and (S, G) state have the same incoming interface.  The (S, G)



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 8]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   traffic must be extracted from the (*, G) stream.  In MPLS this state
   co-existence can be handled in several ways.  Four approaches to this
   problem will be described:

   a) A first method to handle this state co-existence is to terminate
   the LSPs and forward all traffic of this group at L3.  However a
   return to L3 can be avoided in case a (S, G) entry without outgoing
   interface is added to the MRT (N2 in Figure 3).  This entry will only
   receive traffic temporarily.  In this particular case one could
   ignore the (S, G) state and maintain the existing (*, G) LSP, the
   disadvantage being duplicate traffic for a very short time.

   b) A second approach is to assign source specific labels on the nodes
   of the shared tree.  Multiple labels will be associated with one (*,
   G) entry, corresponding to one label per active source.   Since the
   nodes only know which sources are active when traffic from these
   sources arrives, the LSPs can not be pre-established and a fast LSP
   setup method is favorable.

   c) A third way is that only source trees are labelswitched and that
   traffic on the shared tree is always forwarded at L3.  This assumes
   that the shared tree is only used as a way for the receivers to find
   out who the sources are.  By configuring a low bitrate switchover
   threshold one can obtain that the receivers switchover to source
   trees very quickly.

   d) In the fourth approach an LSR which has (S, G)RPT-bit state with a
   non-null oif, advertises a label for (S, G) to the upstream LSR and
   this label advertisement is then propagated by each upstream LSR
   towards the RP.  In this way a dedicated LSP is created for (S, G)
   traffic from the RP to the LSR with the (S, G)RPT-bit state.  In the
   latter LSR the (S, G) LSP is merged onto the (*, G) LSP for the
   appropriate outgoing interfaces.  This ensures that (S, G) packets
   traveling on the shared tree do not make it past any LSR which has
   pruned S.


3.5. Uni/Bi-directional Shared Trees

   Bidirectional shared trees (e.g. CBT) have the disadvantage of
   creating a lot of merging points (M) in the nodes (N) of the shared
   tree. Figure 4 shows these merging points resulting from 2 senders S1
   and S2 on a bidirectional tree.








Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                  [Page 9]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


                 S1                   S2
                 ||                   ||
                 v| <-   <-   <-   <- |v
          <-   <- | ->   ->   ->   -> | ->
         ----N----M----M----M----M----M----N
             ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
             |v   |v   |v   |v   |v   |v
             |    |    |    |    |    |

   Figure 4. Multicast traffic flows from 2 senders on a bidirectional tree


   In Figure 5 the same situation for unidirectional shared trees is
   depicted.  In this case the data of the senders is tunneled towards
   the root node R, yielding only a single merging point, namely the
   root of the shared tree itself.

                 S1
          tunnel ||                  S2
          <----- v|       tunnel     ||
      to R<------------------------- v|
          ->   -> | ->   ->   ->   -> | ->
         ----N----N----N----N----N----N----N
             ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
             |v   |v   |v   |v   |v   |v
             |    |    |    |    |    |

   Figure 5. Multicast traffic flows from 2 senders on a unidirectional tree


3.6. Encapsulated multicast data

   Sources of unidirectional shared trees and non-member sources of
   bidirectional shared trees encapsulate the data towards the root
   node.  The data is then decapsulated in the root node.  The
   encapsulation and decapsulation of multicast data are L3 processes.

   Thus in case of encapsulation/decapsulation a path can never be
   mapped onto an end-to-end LSP: the traffic can not be forwarded on L2
   on the Register interface of the DRsend (encapsulation), nor can it
   cross the root (decapsulation) at L2.

   Remarks:

   1) If the LSR supports mixed L2/L3 forwarding (section 4), the (S, G)
   traffic in DRsend can still be forwarded on L2 on the outgoing
   interfaces which are not the Register interface.




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 10]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   2) The encapsulated traffic can also benefit from MPLS by label
   switching the tunnels.

   3) If the root node decides to join the source (to avoid
   encapsulation/decapsulation), an end-to-end (S, G) LSP can be
   constructed.


3.7. Loop-free-ness

   Multicast routing protocols which depend on a unicast routing
   protocol suffer from the same transient loops as the unicast
   protocols do, however the effect of loops will be much worse in the
   case of multicast.  The reason being, each time a multicast packet
   goes around a loop, copies of the packet may be emitted from the loop
   if branches exist in the loop.

   Note that there exist multicast routing protocols which are
   guaranteed loop free [PARS].  Currently loop detection is a
   configurable option in LDP and a decision on the mechanism for loop
   prevention is postponed.  If loops appear to be a major issue and
   MPLS does not handle them properly these guaranteed loop free
   protocols have an advantage.


3.8. RPF Check

   Some protocols perform a Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check on the
   received multicast packets.  This mechanism checks whether the packet
   is received on the interface which is on the shortest path to the
   source (or root).  This mechanism can introduce problems when
   explicit routing is used (see section 7). Indeed, explicit routing
   can construct a tree yielding another incoming interface than the
   RPF-compatible one.


3.9. Mapping of characteristics on existing protocols

   The above characteristics are summarized in Table 1 for a non-
   exhaustive list of existing IP multicast routing protocols: DVMRP
   [PUSA], MOSPF [MOY], CBT [BALL], PIM-DM [DEER], PIM-SM [DEE2], MIP
   [PARS], SM [PERL].









Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 11]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |                  |DVMRP |MOSPF |CBT   |PIM-DM|PIM-SM|MIP  |SM    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Aggregation       |no    |no    |no    |no    |no    |no   |no    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Flood & Prune     |yes   |no    |no    |yes   |no    |no   |option|
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Tree Type         |source|source|shared|source|both  |both |shared|
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |State Co-existence|no    |no    |no    |no    |yes   |yes  |no    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Uni/Bi-directional|N/A   |N/A   |bi    |N/A   |uni   |both |bi    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Encapsulation     |no    |no    |yes   |no    |yes   |yes  |yes   |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |Loop Free         |no    |no    |no    |no    |no    |yes  |no    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
   |RPF check         |yes   |yes   |no    |yes   |yes   |no   |no    |
   +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+

            Table 1. Taxonomy of IP Multicast Routing Protocols


   From Table 1 one can derive e.g. that DVMRP will consume a lot of
   labels when the Flood & Prune L3 tree is mapped onto a L2 tree.
   Furthermore since DVMRP uses source trees it experiences no merging
   problem when label switching is applied.  The table can be
   interpreted in the same way for the other protocols.


4. Mixed L2/L3 forwarding in a single node

   Since unicast traffic has one incoming and one outgoing interface the
   traffic is either forwarded at L2 OR at L3 (Figure 6).  Because
   multicast traffic can be forwarded to more than one outgoing
   interface one can consider the case that traffic to some branches is
   forwarded on L2 and to other branches on L3 (Figure 7).














Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 12]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


                  +--------+            +--------+
                  |   L3   |            |   L3   |
                  |  +>>+  |            |        |
                  |  |  |  |            |        |
                  +--|--|--+            +--------+
                  |  |  |  |            |        |
              ->-----+  +----->     ->------>>----->
                  |   L2   |            |   L2   |
                  +--------+            +--------+

              Figure 6. Unicast forwarding on resp. L3 or L2

            +--------+          +--------+         +--------+
            |   L3   |          |   L3   |         |   L3   |
            |  +>>++ |          |  +>>+  |         |        |
            |  |  || |          |  |  |  |         |        |
            +--|--||-+          +--|--|--+         +--------+
            |  |  |+---->       |  |  +----->      |      +---->
        ->-----+  |  |          |  |L2   |      ->----->>-+ |
            |   L2+----->   ->-----+>>------>      |   L2 +---->
            +--------+          +--------+         +--------+

       Figure 7. Multicast forwarding on resp. L3, mixed L2/L3 or L2


   Nodes which support this 'mixed L2/L3 forwarding' feature allow that
   a multicast tree splits in branches of which some are forwarded at L3
   while others are switched at L2.

   The L3 forwarding has to take care that the traffic is not forwarded
   on those branches that already get their traffic on L2.  This can be
   accomplished by e.g. providing an extra bit in the Multicast Routing
   Table.

   Although the mixed L2/L3 forwarding requires processing of the
   traffic at L3, the load on the L3 forwarding engine is generally less
   than in a pure L3 node.

   Supporting this 'mixed L2/L3 forwarding' feature has following
   advantages:











Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 13]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   a) Assume LSR A (Figure 8) is an MPLS edge node for the branch
   towards LSR B and an MPLS root node for the branch towards LSR C.
   The mixed L2/L3 forwarding allows that the branch towards C is not
   disturbed by a return to L3 in LSR A.


                           +-------------+
                           | MPLS cloud  |
                           |     N       |
                           |    / \      |
                           |   /   \     |
                           |  /     \    |
                           | A       N   |
                           |/ \       \  |
                           |   \       \ |
                          /|    \        |
                         B |     C       |
                           |             |
                           +-------------+

                Figure 8.  Mixed L2/L3 forwarding in node A

   b) Allows a return to L3 for branches which requested lower QoS
   (section 8).

   c) Enables the use of the traffic driven trigger with the downstream
   or upstream on demand label distribution mode, as explained in
   section 5.4.


5. Taxonomy of IP multicast LSP triggers

   The creation of an LSP for multicast streams can be triggered by
   different events, which can be mapped on the well known categories of
   'request driven', 'topology driven' and 'traffic driven'.

   a) Request driven: intercept the sending or receiving of control
   messages (e.g. multicast routing messages, resource reservation
   messages).

   b) Topology driven: map the L3 tree, which is available in the
   Multicast Routing Table, to a L2 tree.  The mapping is done even if
   there is no traffic.

   c) Traffic driven: the L3 tree is mapped onto a L2 tree when data
   arrives on the tree.

   Whether the trigger by multicast routing messages is categorized as



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 14]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   request or topology driven is debatable.  The constructed L2 tree
   will be identical to the one constructed by topology driven methods,
   but the definition of request driven [CALL] includes all label
   assignments in response to control traffic.  In [KATS] the multicast
   routing messages trigger is categorized as request driven, so we will
   continue using this convention.


5.1. Request driven

5.1.1. General

   The establishment of LSPs can be triggered by the interception of
   outgoing (requiring that the label is requested by the downstream
   LSR) or incoming (requiring that the label is requested by the
   upstream LSR) control messages.  Figure 9 illustrates these two
   cases.

           LSRu              LSRd      LSRu              LSRd
       -------+              +---      ---+              +-------
              |   control    |            |   control    |
       <---*<-----message-------      <-------message-------*----
           |  |              |            |              |  |
    trigger|  |              |            |              |  |trigger
           |  |    bind      |            |    bind      |  |
           +--------or--------->      <---------or----------+
              | bind-request |            | bind-request |
              |              |            |              |
              |              |            |              |
              |----data----->|            |-----data---->|

                  incoming                    outgoing

                     Figure 9. Request driven trigger
      (interception of resp. incoming and outgoing control messages)


   The downstream LSR (LSRd) sends a control message to the upstream LSR
   (LSRu). In the case that incoming control messages are intercepted
   and the MPLS module in LSRu decides to establish an LSP it will send
   an LDP bind (upstream mode) or an LDP bind request (downstream-on-
   demand mode) to LSRd.

   Currently, for multicast, we can identify two important types of
   control messages: the multicast routing messages and the resource
   reservation messages.





Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 15]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


5.1.2. Multicast routing messages

   In principle, this mechanism can only be used by IP multicast routing
   protocols which use explicit signaling: e.g. the Join messages in
   PIM-SM or CBT.  Remark that DVMRP and PIM-DM can be adapted to
   support this type of trigger [FARI], however, at the cost of
   modifying the IP multicast routing protocol itself !

   IP multicast routing messages can create both hard states (e.g. CBT
   Join + CBT Join-Ack) and soft states (e.g. PIM-SM Joins are sent
   periodically).  The latter generates more control traffic for tree
   maintenance and thus requires more processing in the MPLS module.

   Triggers based on the multicast routing protocol messages have the
   disadvantage that the routing calculations performed by the multicast
   routing daemon to determine the Multicast Routing Table are repeated
   by the MPLS module. The former determines the tree that will be used
   at L3, the latter calculates an identical tree to be used by L2.
   Since the same task is performed twice, it is better to create the
   multicast LSP on the basis of information extracted from the
   Multicast Routing Table itself (see section 5.2 and 5.3).  The
   routing calculations become more complex for protocols which support
   a switch-over from a (*, G) tree to a (S, G) tree because more
   messages have to be interpreted.

   When a host has a point-to-point connection to the first router one
   could create  'LSPs up to the end-user' by intercepting not only the
   multicast routing messages but the IGMP Join/Prune messages ([FENN])
   as well.


5.1.3. Resource reservation messages

   As is the case for unicast the RSVP Resv message can be used as a
   trigger to establish LSPs.  A source of a multicast group will send
   an RSVP Path message down the tree, the receivers can then reply with
   an RSVP Resv message.  RSVP scales equally well for multicast as it
   does for unicast because:

   a) RSVP Resv messages can merge.

   b) RSVP Resv messages are only sent up to the first branch which made
   the required reservation.

   More on RSVP in the sections on Piggy-backing (section 6) and QoS
   (section 8).





Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 16]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


5.2. Topology driven

   The Multicast Routing Table (MRT) is maintained by the IP multicast
   routing protocol daemon (e.g. PIM/pimd, DVMRP/mrouted). The MPLS
   module maps this L3 tree topology information to L2 p2mp LSPs.

   The MPLS module can poll the MRT to extract the tree topologies.
   Alternatively, the multicast daemon can be modified to notify the
   MPLS module directly of any change to the MRT.

   The disadvantage of this method is that labels are consumed even when
   no traffic exists.

5.3. Traffic driven

5.3.1. General

   A traffic driven trigger method will only construct LSPs for trees
   which carry traffic.  It consumes less labels than the topology
   driven method, as labels are only allocated when there is traffic on
   the multicast tree.

   If the mixed L2/L3 forwarding capability (see section 4) is not
   supported, the traffic driven trigger requires a label distribution
   mode in which the label is requested by the LSRu (downstream-on-
   demand or upstream mode).  In Figure 10, suppose an LSP for a certain
   group exists to LSRd1 and another LSRd2 wants to join the tree.  In
   order for LSRd2 to initiate a trigger, it must already receive the
   traffic from the tree.  This can be either at L2 or at L3. The former
   case is a chicken and egg problem. The latter case requires a mixed
   L2/L3 forwarding capability in LSRu to add the L3 branch.




















Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 17]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


                                    +--------+
                                    |  LSRd1 |
                                    |        |
         +--------+                 |   L3   |
         |  LSRu  |                 +--------+
         |        |                 |        |
         |   L3   |    +-------------------------->
         +--------+   /             |   L2   |
         |        |  /              +--------+
     ->-------------+
         |   L2   |                 +--------+
         +--------+                 |  LSRd2 |
                                    |        |
                                    |   L3   |
                                    +--------+
                                    |        |
                                    |        |
                                    |   L2   |
                                    +--------+

               Figure 10. The LSRu has to request the label.


5.3.2. An implementation example

   To illustrate that by choosing an appropriate trigger one can obtain
   that MPLS multicast is independent of the deployed multicast routing
   protocol following implementation example is given.

   Current implementations on Unix platforms of IP multicast routing
   protocols (DVMRP, PIM) have a Multicast Forwarding Cache (MFC).  The
   MFC is a cached copy of the Multicast Routing Table.  The MFC
   requests an entry for a certain multicast group when it experiences a
   'cache miss' for an incoming multicast packet. The missing routing
   information is provided by the multicast daemon. If at a later point
   in time something changes to the route (outgoing interfaces added or
   removed), the multicast daemon will update the MFC.

   The MFC is implemented as a common component (part of the kernel),
   which makes this trigger very attractive because it can be
   transparently used for any IP multicast routing protocol.

   Entries in the MFC are removed when no traffic is received for this
   entry for a certain period of time.  When label switching is applied
   to a certain MFC-entry, the L3 will not see any packets arriving
   anymore.  To retain the normal MFC behavior, the L3 counters of the
   MFC need to be updated by L2 measurements.




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 18]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


5.4. Combinations of triggers and label distribution modes

   Table 2 shows the valid combinations of label distribution modes and
   trigger types which were discussed in the previous sections.  The (X)
   means that the combination is valid when the mixed L2/L3 forwarding
   feature is supported in the LSR.

      +----------------+-------------------------------------------+
      |                |             label requested by            |
      |                |         LSRu        |         LSRd        |
      |                +---------------------+---------------------+
      |                | upstream |downstream|downstream| upstream |
      |                |          |on demand |          | on demand|
      +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |Request Driven  |          |          |          |          |
      |(incoming msg)  |   X      |    X     |          |          |
      +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |Request Driven  |          |          |          |          |
      |(outgoing msg)  |          |          |    X     |    X     |
      +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |Topology Driven |   X      |    X     |    X     |    X     |
      +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      |Traffic Driven  |   X      |    X     |   (X)    |   (X)    |
      +----------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

   Table 2. Valid combinations of triggers and label distribution modes


6. Piggy-backing

   In Figure 9 (outgoing case) one can observe that instead of sending 2
   separate messages the label advertisement can be piggy-backed on the
   existing control messages.  For multicast two piggy-back candidates
   exist:

   a) Multicast routing messages: protocols as PIM-SM and CBT have
   explicit Join messages which could carry the label mappings.  This
   approach is described in [FARI].  When different multicast routing
   protocols are deployed, an extension to each of these protocols has
   to be defined.

   b) RSVP Resv messages: a label mapping extension object for RSVP,
   also applicable to multicast, is proposed in [DAVI].

   The pro and cons of piggy-backing on multicast routing messages will
   be described now.

   Piggy-backing has following advantages:



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 19]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   a) If label advertisement is piggy-backed on multicast routing
   messages, then the distribution of routes and the distribution of
   labels is tightly synchronized.  This eliminates difficult corner
   cases such as "what do I do with a label if I don't (yet) have a
   routing table entry to attach it to?".  It also minimizes the
   interval between the establishment of the multicast route and the
   mapping of a label to the route.

   b) The number of control messages needed to support label
   advertisement beyond those needed to support the multicast routing
   itself is zero.

   Following disadvantages of piggy-backing can be identified:

   a) In dense-mode protocols there are no messages on which the label
   advertisement can be piggy-backed.  [FARI] proposes to add periodic
   messages to dense-mode protocols for the purpose of label
   advertisement, which is a heavy impact on the multicast routing
   protocol and it eliminates the message conserving benefit of piggy-
   backing.

   b) The second solution for the state co-existence problem (section
   3.4) can not be applied in combination with piggy-backing.

   c) Piggybacking requires extending the multicast routing protocol,
   and hence becomes less attractive if label advertisement needs to be
   supported for multiple routing protocols.  Especially when not only
   the label advertisement but also the other two LDP functions
   (discovery and adjacency) are piggy-backed.

   d) Piggy-backing assumes the downstream label distribution mode, this
   excludes a number of trigger methods (see Table 2).

   e) LDP normally runs on top of TCP, assuring a reliable communication
   between peer nodes.  Piggy-backed label advertisement often replaces
   the reliable communication with periodic soft-state label
   advertisements.  Because of this periodic label advertisement the
   control traffic (in number of bytes) will increase.

   f) If a VCID notification mechanism [NAGA] is required, the (in-band)
   notification can normally be done by sending the LDP bind through the
   newly established VC. This way only one message is required. This
   method cannot be combined with piggy-backing because the routing
   message is sent before the VC can be established. An extra handshake
   message is thus required, diminishing the benefit of piggy-backing.


   So whether piggy-backing makes sense or not depends heavily on which



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 20]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   and how many multicast routing protocols are deployed, whether LDP is
   already used for unicast, which trigger mechanism is used, ... .
   Piggybacking is just one possible component of an MPLS multicast
   solution.


7. Explicit routing

   Explicit routing for unicast refers to overriding the unicast routing
   table by using LSPs.  A first way to interpret "multicast explicit
   routing" is overriding the multicast routing table by another LSP
   tree (e.g. a centrally calculated Steiner tree).

   A second way of interpreting "multicast explicit routing" is that
   multicast routing protocols use the explicit unicast routes to
   construct trees.  However this approach creates some problems:

   1) The unicast explicit paths need to be bidirectional so that the
   multicast data (from source to receiver) and the multicast routing
   messages (from receiver to source) follow the same path.

   2) The RPF check also has to take into account the explicit path.


8. QoS/CoS

8.1. DiffServ

   The Differentiated Services approach can be applied to multicast as
   well.  It introduces finer stream granularities (Class of Service
   (CoS) as an extra differentiator).  A sender can construct one or
   more trees with different CoS bits.

   These (S, G, CoS) or (*, G, CoS) trees can be mapped very easily onto
   LSPs when the traffic driven trigger is used.  In this case one can
   create LSPs with different attributes for the various classes.  Note
   however that these LSPs still use the same route as long as the tree
   construction mechanism does not support a class identifier, this
   means that the multicast routing protocol has to interpret the CoS
   bits in the join messages and create (S, G, CoS) state in the
   routers.


8.2. IntServ and RSVP

   RSVP can be used to setup multicast trees with QoS.  An important
   multicast issue is the problem of how to map the 'heterogeneous
   receivers' paradigm onto L2 (remark that it is not solved in IP



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 21]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   either).  This subject is tackled in [CRAW].  Pragmatic approaches
   are the 'Limited Heterogeneity Model' which allows a best effort
   service and a single alternate QoS (e.g. a QoS proposed by the sender
   in a RSVP Path message) and the 'Homogeneous Model' which allows only
   a single QoS.

   The first approach will construct full trees for each service class.
   The sender has to send its traffic twice across the network (1 best-
   effort and 1 QoS tree). Both trees can be label switched.

   The second approach constructs one tree and the best-effort users are
   connected to the QoS tree.  If the branches created for best-effort
   users are not to be label switched, (thus carried by a hop-by-hop
   default LSP) the QoS multicast traffic has to be merged onto these
   default LSPs.  This function can be provided by the 'mixed L2/L3
   forwarding' feature described in section 4.  If this is not available
   merging is necessary to avoid a return to L3 in the QoS LSP.

   The mapping of the IntServ service categories onto L2 for ATM service
   categories is studied in [GARR].


9. Multi-access networks

   Multicast MPLS on multi-access networks poses a special problem.  An
   LSR that wants to join a group must always be ready to accept the
   label that is already assigned to the group LSP (to another
   downstream LSR on the link).  This can be achieved in three ways:

   1) Each LSR on the multi-access link memorizes all the advertised
   labels on the link, even if it has not received a join for the
   associated group.  If an LSR is added to the multi-access link it has
   to retrieve this information from another LSR on the link or in case
   of soft state label advertisement it can wait a certain time before
   it can allocate labels itself.  If LSRs allocate a label 'at the same
   moment' the LSR with the highest IP address could keep it, while the
   other LSRs withdraw the label.

   2) Each LSR gets its own label range to allocate labels from.  A
   mechanism for label partitioning is described in [FAR2].  If an LSR
   is added to the multi-access link the label ranges have to be
   negotiated again and possibly existing LSPs are teared down and are
   reconstructed with other labels.

   3) Per multi-access link one LSR could be elected to be responsibe
   for label allocation.  When an LSR needs a label, it can request it
   from this Label Allocation LSR.




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 22]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   Unlike the unicast case, a multicast stream can have more than one
   downstream LSR which all have to use the same label.  Two solutions
   for label advertisement can be thought of:

   1) [FARI] proposes to multicast the label advertisements to all LSRs
   on the shared link.  Since multicast is not reliable this requires
   periodic label advertisements, yielding label advertisement
   duplicates in time.

   2) Another approach is that an LSR unicasts its label advertisements
   in a reliable way (TCP) to all other (or to all interested) LSRs on
   the shared link.  In this approach the hard-state character of LDP
   can be maintained but the label advertisement is duplicated in space.

   Since LSPs are only rewarding if they have a long lifetime and since
   the number of LSRs on a shared link is limited the second approach
   seems advantageous.

   Another issue with multicast in multi-access networks is whether to
   use upstream or downstream label advertisement.  For multicast
   traffic, upstream label allocation is simpler since there can be only
   one upstream node per link that belongs to a multicast tree.  This
   (upstream) node can assign a label without any contention.  With
   downstream allocation, there may be multiple downstream nodes for a
   given tree on a multi-access link; each node may propose a label
   assignment leading to contention and a contention resolution scheme
   is required to chose one of them as the label allocator.

   Once a label has been assigned, it is possible that the label
   assigner leaves the tree.  With downstream label assignment, this
   could happen when the label allocator leaves the group.  With
   upstream assignment this could happen when the upstream LSR changes
   due to a unicast topology change.


10. More issues

10.1. TTL field

   The TTL field in the IP header is typically used for loop detection.
   In IP multicast it is also used to limit the scope of the multicast
   packets by setting an appropriate TTL value.

   Thus in LSRs that do not support a TTL decrement function (e.g ATM
   LSR), the scope restriction function is affected.  Suppose one could
   calculate in advance the number of hops an LSP traverses.  In a
   unicast LSP the TTL value could then be decremented at the ingress or
   the egress node.  For multicast all the branches of the tree can have



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 23]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   different lengths so the TTL can only be decremented at the egress
   node, potentially wasting bandwidth if the TTL turns out to be zero
   or negative.


10.2. Independent vs. Ordered Label Distribution Control

   Current Label Distribution Terminology is only defined for unicast.
   The following sections explore what this terminology might mean in a
   multicast context.

   In Independent Control ([ANDE]) each LSR can take the initiative to
   do a label mapping.  In Ordered Control ([ANDE]) an LSR only maps a
   label when it already received a label from its next-hop.

   All the previously described trigger methods (section 5) combine with
   Independent Control.  Note that if the request driven approach is
   used with Independent Control the label distribution still behaves as
   in Ordered Control: the control messages flow from the egress node
   upstream, imposing the same sequence to the label advertisement.

   Ordered Control is not applicable for a traffic driven trigger in
   case the node does not support mixed L2/L3 forwarding. According to
   Table 2, this case implies that labels are requested by the upstream
   LSR. Suppose in Figure 11 that an LSP exists from S to R1 and a new
   branch must be added to R2. B will only accept a label on the A-B
   link if a label is already assigned on the B-C link. However, to
   establish a label on the B-C link, B must already receive traffic on
   the A-B link.


                                     N---N---R1
                                    /
                                   /
                           S -----A
                                   \
                                    \
                                     B---C---R2

                                Figure 11.


10.3. Conservative vs. Liberal Label Retention Mode

   In the Conservative Mode ([ANDE]) only the labels that are used for
   forwarding data (if the next-hop for the FEC is the LSR which
   advertised the label) are allocated and maintained.  In the Liberal
   Mode labels are advertised and maintained to all neighbors.



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 24]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   Liberal Mode does not make sense in multicast.  Two reasons can be
   identified for this:

   1) All LSRs have a route for each unicast FEC.  This is not true for
   multicast FECs.

   2) For multicast an LSR always knows to which neighbor to send the
   label request or the label map messages.  In e.g. unicast downstream
   mode (see below) the LSR does not know where to send the label
   mappings and thus has to send the mapping to all its neighbors.  In
   this case supporting the Liberal Mode does not generate extra
   messages (it still requires extra state information and label space)
   and thus the threshold to support Liberal Mode could be considered
   lower.

   Table 3 shows the cases where it is known by an LSR where to send its
   label requests.

              +---------+----------------------------------+
              |         |       label requested by         |
              |         |      LSRu      |      LSRd       |
              +---------+----------------+-----------------|
              |unicast  |      Yes       |       No        |
              +---------+----------------+-----------------|
              |multicast|      Yes       |      Yes        |
              +---------+----------------+-----------------+

       Table 3. Does an LSR know where to send its label requests ?


   For a unicast flow, an LSR can determine the next hop LSR, which is
   the one to send the request to in case of upstream or downstream-on-
   demand mode.  The LSR is however not able to find the previous hop.
   The previous hop is not necessarily the next hop towards the source,
   because the path from A to B is not necessarily the same as the path
   from B to A.  Such a situation can occur as a result of asymmetric
   link measures or in the event that multiple equal cost paths exist
   [PAXS].

   In the case of multicast, an LSR knows both the next hop(s) and the
   previous hop. Because multicast trees are constructed using the
   reverse shortest path method, the previous hop is always the next hop
   towards the source or towards the root of the tree.


10.4. Downstream vs. Upstream Label Allocation

   The label can be allocated by either the downstream LSR (downstream-



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 25]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


   on-demand, downstream) or the upstream LSR (upstream-on-demand,
   upstream, implicit).  The advantages of downstream label allocation
   are:

   a) It is the same mode as for unicast LDP, thus eliminating the need
   to develop upstream label distribution procedures.

   b) The same label can be kept when the upstream LSR changes due to a
   route change, which is an advantage on multi-access networks (see
   section 9).

   c) Compatible with piggybacking (especially the downstream
   distribution mode).


   The advantages of upstream label allocation are:

   a) Easier label allocation in multi-access networks (see section 9).

   b) The same label can be kept when the downstream LSR (which would
   have been the label allocator in downstream mode in a multi-access
   network) leaves the group (see section 9).

   c) The upstream and implicit distribution mode allow a faster LSP
   setup when the LSP is traffic triggered.


10.5. Explicit vs. Implicit Label Distribution

   Beside the explicit distribution modes (which use a signaling
   protocol), [ACHA] proposes an implicit label distribution method by
   using unknown labels.  This method has all the advantages of the
   upstream label allocation method and is probably the fastest label
   advertisement method for traffic triggered LSPs.

   Implicit label distribution is not applicable if the FEC-to-label
   binding has been advertised prior to traffic arrival, e.g. explicit
   routing (i.e. if all the information necessary to identify the FEC is
   not present in the packet).

   Explicit distribution allows pre-establishment (before the arrival of
   data) of LSPs with topology or request driven triggers.


11. Security Considerations

   Security considerations are not discussed in this version of the
   document.



Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 26]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


12. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, Piet Van Mieghem, Philip
   Dumortier, Hans De Neve, Jan Vanhoutte, Alex Mondrus and Gerard
   Gastaud for the fruitful discussions and/or their thorough revision
   of this document.


References


[ACHA]  A. Acharya, F. Griffoul, F. Ansari, "IP Multicast Support in
        MPLS Networks", IETF Draft, draft-acharya-ipsofacto-mpls-mcast-
        00.txt, February 1999.

[ANDE]  L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette and R. Thomas,
        "Label Distribution Protocol", IETF Draft, draft-mpls-ldp-
        03.txt, January 1999.

[BALL]  A. Ballardie, B. Cain, Z. Zhang, "Core Based Trees (CBT, v3)
        Multicast Routing - Protocol Specification", IETF Draft, draft-
        ietf-idmr-cbt-spec-v3-01.txt, August 1998.

[CALL]  R. Callon, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, G. Swallow and A.
        Viswanathan, "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching",
        IETF Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02.txt, November 1997.

[CONT]  A. Conta, P. Doolan, A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on Frame
        Relay Networks", IETF Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-fr-03.txt, November
        1998.

[CRAW]  E. Crawley, Editor, L. Berger, S. Berson, F. Baker, M. Borden
        and J. Krawczyk, "A Framework for Integrated Services and RSVP
        over ATM", IETF Draft, RC2382, August 1998.

[DAVI]  B. Davie, J. Lawrence, K. McCloghrie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, G.
        Swallow and P. Doolan, "MPLS using ATM VC switching", IETF
        Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-atm-01.txt, November 1998.

[DAV2]  B. Davie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, V. Srinivasan
        and S. Blake, "Use of Label Switching With RSVP", IETF Draft,
        draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-00.txt, March 1998

[DEER]  S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S.
        Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma and L Wei,
        "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
        Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 27]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


[DEE2]  S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, Protocol
        Independent Multicast Version 2 Dense Mode Specification", IETF
        Draft, draft-ietf-pim-v2-dm-01.txt, November, 1998.

[FARI]  D. Farinacci and Y. Rekhter, "Multicast Tag Binding and Distri-
        bution using PIM", IETF Draft, draft-farinacci-multicast-tagsw-
        00.txt, December 1996.

[FAR2]  D. Farinacci and Y. Rekhter, "Partitioning Tag Space among Mul-
        ticast Routers on a Common Subnet", IETF Draft, draft-
        farinacci-multicast-tag-part-00.txt, December 1996.

[FENN]  W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, IGMP, version
        2", RFC 2236, November 1997.

[GARR]  M. Garrett and M. Borden, "Interoperation of Controlled-Load
        Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", IETF Draft, RFC2381,
        August 1998.

[KATS]  Y. Katsube, Y. Ohba and K. Nagami, "Two Modes of MPLS Explicit
        Label Distribution Protocol", IETF Draft, draft-katsube-mpls-
        two-ldp-00.txt, September 1997.

[MOY]   J. Moy, "Multicast extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584, March 1994.

[NAGA]  K. Nagami, N. Demizu, H. Esaki and P. Doolan, "VCID Notification
        over ATM link", IETF Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-vcid-atm-00.txt;
        March 1998.

[PERL]  R. Perlman, C-Y Lee, A. Ballardie, J. Crowcroft, Z. Wang, T.
        Maufer, "Simple Multicast", IETF Draft, draft-perlman-simple-
        multicast-02.txt, February 1999.

[PUSA]  T. Pusateri, "Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol", IETF
        Draft, draft-ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-05, October 1997.

[PARS]  M. Parsa and J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, "A protocol for scaleable
        loop-free multicast routing", IEEE JSAC, vol.15, no.3, p.316-
        331, April 1997

[PAXS]  V. Paxson, "End-to-End Routing Behavior in the Internet",
        IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 5(5), pp. 601-615.

[ROSE]  E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter, D. Tappan, D. Farinacci, G. Fedorkow, T.
        Li, A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", IETF draft, draft-
        ietf-mpls-label-encaps-03.txt, September 1998.





Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 28]


Internet Draft      draft-ooms-mpls-multicast-02.txt            May 1999


Authors Addresses

   Dirk Ooms
   Alcatel Corporate Research Center
   Fr. Wellesplein 1, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium.
   Phone : 32-3-240-4732
   Fax   : 32-3-240-9932
   E-mail: Dirk.Ooms@alcatel.be

   Wim Livens
   Alcatel Corporate Research Center
   Fr. Wellesplein 1, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium.
   Phone : 32-3-240-7570
   E-mail: Wim.Livens@alcatel.be

   Bernard Sales
   Alcatel Corporate Research Center
   Fr. Wellesplein 1, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium.
   Phone : 32-3-240-9574
   E-mail: Bernard.Sales@alcatel.be

   Maria Fernanda Ramalho
   Alcatel Corporate Research Center
   Fr. Wellesplein 1, 2018 Antwerpen, Belgium.
   Phone : 32-3-240-9725
   E-mail: Maria.Ramalho@alcatel.be

   Arup Acharya
   C&C Research Labs, NEC USA
   4 Independence Way, Princeton, NJ, USA
   Phone : 1 609 951 2992
   Fax   : 1 609 951 2499
   E-mail: arup@ccrl.nj.nec.com

   Frederic Griffoul
   C&C Research Labs, NEC Europe Ltd.
   Adenauerplatz 6, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany
   Phone : 49 6221 905 1120
   Fax   : 49 6221 905 1155
   E-mail: griffoul@ccrle.nec.de

   Furquan Ansari
   Bell Labs
   101 Crawfords Corner Rd., Holmdel, NJ 07733
   Phone : 1 732 949 5149
   Fax   : 1 732 332 6511
   E-mail: furquan@dnrc.bell-labs.com




Ooms, et al.             Expires November 1999                 [Page 29]


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