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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                          L. Yong
Internet Draft                                                  W. Hao
                                                            D. Eastlake
Category: Standard Track                                         Huawei
                                                                 A. Qu
                                                              J. Hudson
                                                                Brocade


Expires: December 2014                                  June 12, 2014


         IS-IS Protocol Extension For Building Distribution Trees
                draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-02

Abstract

   This document proposes an IS-IS protocol extension for automatically
   building bi-directional distribution trees to transport multi-
   destination traffic in an IP network.


Status of this document

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Yong, et al                                                    [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   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.


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Conventions used in this document.........................4
   2. IS-IS Protocol Extension.......................................5
      2.1. RTADDR sub-TLV............................................5
      2.2. RTADDRV6 sub-TLV..........................................6
      2.3. The Group Address Sub-TLV.................................7
   3. Procedures.....................................................8
      3.1. Distribution Tree Computation.............................8
      3.2. Parent Selection..........................................8
      3.3. Parallel Local Link Selection.............................9
      3.4. Tree Selection for a Group...............................10
      3.5. Pruning a Distribution Tree for a Group..................10
      3.6. Reverse Path Forwarding Check (RPFC).....................10
      3.7. Forwarding Using a Pruned Distribution Tree..............11
      3.8. Local Forwarding at Edge Router..........................11
      3.9. Distribution Tree across different IGP Levels............12
   4. Mobility Support..............................................14
      4.1. Listener moves from one edge router to another...........14
      4.2. Source host moves from one edge router to another........14
   5. Backward Compatibility........................................14
   6. Interworking with PIM.........................................14
   7. Security Considerations.......................................14
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................14
   9. Acknowledgements..............................................15
   10. References...................................................15
      10.1. Normative References....................................15
      10.2. Informative References..................................15












Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014


1. Introduction

   Computer virtualization and cloud applications motivate the DC
   network virtualization technology [NVO3FRWK]. This technology
   decouples the end-points networking from the DC physical
   infrastructure network in terms of address space and configuration
   [NVO3FRWK].

   DC network virtualization solutions are required to carry all types
   of traffic in today's DC physical networks including multi-
   destination traffic. It is also desirable to use an IP network as
   the DC underlying network for the overlay virtual networks
   [NVO3FRWK].

   IP network technology does not yet support multi-destination traffic
   forwarding. A variety of Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
   solutions [RFC4601] [RFC5015] are designed to carry IP multicast
   traffic over IP networks. However DC infrastructure for multi-
   tenancy application is simple IGP domain where using PIM for
   multicast transport has several drawbacks. This is because the PIM
   use their own hello protocol and hop-to-hop Join/Leave message so
   each router does not have global information about the receivers; in
   the PIM, the data packets could be forwarded unnecessarily to the
   Rendezvous Point(RP), and then get dropped there when no receiver at
   all or the sender and receivers for a multicast group are on the
   same branch towards the RP. This can unnecessarily consume network
   resources.  Furthermore PIM solutions maintain a lot of soft-state,
   have intensive CPU utilization, and have additional convergence
   time, besides the IGP's, under a failure condition.

   Although the PIM protocol is mature and has been deployed in IP
   networks, applying PIM to DC IP network that supports the Network
   Virtualization Overlays can be an extremely challenging [MCASTISS]
   [DCMCAST]. For example, VXLAN [VXLAN] solutions require multicast
   support in the underlying network to simulate overlay L2 broadcast
   capability, where every edge node in an overlay virtual network (VN)
   is a multicast source and receiver. An overlay VN topology may be
   sparse and dynamic compared to the underlying IP network topology.
   Also a large number of overlay VNs may exist in a DC, which PIM
   solutions can't scale to.

   Furthermore IP Overlay based network virtualization technology has
   been adopted by network vendors to create a VN automatically, self-
   healing, multi-service fabric to achieve the goal of a SDN capable
   fabric which is open, programmable, and elastic. Within the fabric,
   it is a closed IP network carrying all types of traffic, hence



Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   having one control plane protocol to support both uni-destination
   and multi-destination forwarding.

   This is the motivation to extend IGP protocol in support multicast
   transport so one IGP protocol can support both unicast and multicast
   transport. This document uses extensions to the IS-IS protocol to
   build a distribution tree for multi-destination traffic transport in
   an IP network.  A router uses either a Router Capabilities TLV or an
   MT Router Capabilities TLV to announce the tree root address and the
   multicast groups associated to the tree. With this information,
   routers in the IGP can compute rooted distribution trees by using
   the link state information, i.e. LSDB, and shortest path algorithm.
   Edge routers include information in their LSPs to announce their
   multicast group-memberships. Routers perform distribution tree
   pruning for each multicast group based on other router's group
   membership announcements. A router forwards the multi-destination
   traffic along the pruned tree.

   In case that edge router needs to get the host membership of a
   multicast group, edge routers may use IGMP query messages [RFC3376]
   to inform the attached hosts and the hosts use IGMP report message
   to response with their interested multicast group(s).

   In cases where the solution described in this document applies to
   the underlying network that transports overlay virtual networks
   [NVO3FRWK], mapping between an overlay multicast group and a
   underlying multicast group is necessary. Edge routers further need
   to perform packet encapsulation/decapsulation.[NVO3FRWK]

   The benefits of this solution are 1) protocol convergence: use
   single protocol for both unicast and multicast traffic transport and
   get the same convergence time for unicast and multicast traffic. 2)
   multi-destination transport simplification: rely on the LSDB for
   computing a distribution tree and not run PIM hello protocol. 3)
   forwarding efficiency: no need to always forward the traffic to the
   RP; 4) better scalability: no need to maintain heavy PIM soft
   states. TRILL [RFC6325] has used IS-IS for both single destination
   and multi-destination packet transport, which proves the protocol
   capability of doing both.

  1.1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].





Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

2. IS-IS Protocol Extension

  2.1.  RTADDR sub-TLV

   This is a sub-TLV that is used in either a Router Capabilities TLV
   or an MT Capabilities TLV. Each RTADDR sub-TLV contains a root IPv4
   address and multicast group addresses that associate to the tree. A
   router may use multiple RTADDR sub-TLVs to announce multiple root
   addresses and associated multicast groups with each root. RTADDR
   sub-TLV format is below.

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |subType=RTADDR |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Length      |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                      Root IPv4 Address                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |S| RESV        |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Tree Priority |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |Num of Groups  |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Group Address (1)                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Group Mask (1)                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   GROUP Address (N)                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Group Mask (N)                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Where:

     subType: RTADDR (TBD)

     Length: variable depending on the number of associated groups

     Root IPv4 Address: IPv4 Address for a root

     S bit: If set, the rooted tree for single area only. Otherwise,
     the rooted tree crosses multiple areas.



Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

     RESV: 3 reserved bits. MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.

     Tree Priority: An eight bit unsigned integer where larger
     magnitude means higher priority. Zero means no priority.

     Num of Groups: the number of group addresses

     Group Address: IPv4 Address for the group

     Group Mask: multicast group range

   One router may be the root for multiple trees. Each tree associates
   to a set of multicast groups. In this case, a router encodes
   multiple RTADDR sub-TLVs to announce root addresses, one for each
   root, in either a Router Capabilities TLV or an MT Capabilities TLV.
   The group address/mask in different sub-TLVs can overlap. See
   section 3 for detail.

  2.2. RTADDRV6 sub-TLV

   This sub-TLV is used in an IPv6 network. It has the same format and
   usage except that the addresses are in IPv6.


























Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |subTyp=RTADDRV6|                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Length      |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +                     Root IPv6 Address                         +
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |S|RESV         |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Tree Priority |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |Num of Groups  |                  (1 byte)
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +                  Group IPv6 Address (1)                       +
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +                     MASK(1)                                   +
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




  2.3. The Group Address Sub-TLV

   The Group Address TLV and a set of Group Address sub-TLVs are
   defined in RFC 7176 [RFC7176]. The GIP-ADDR and GIPV6-ADDR sub-TLVs
   are used in this solution. An edge router uses the GIP-ADDR sub-TLV
   or GIPV6-ADDR to announce its interested multicast groups. The GIP-



Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   ADDR sub-TLV applies to an IPv4 network and GIPV6-ADDR sub-TLV for
   IPv6 network.

   When using a GIP-ADDR or GIPV6-ADDR sub-TLV, the field VLAN-ID MUST
   set to zero and be ignored. Other field usage remains the same as
   [RFC7176]


3. Procedures

   When an operator selects a router as a distribution tree root,
   he/she configures the tree root address and associated multicast
   groups on the router. A tree root address can be an interface
   address or router loopback address. After the configuration, the
   router will include a RTADDR sub-TLV, inside either a Router
   Capabilities TLV or an MT Capabilities TLV, where the tree root
   address and multicast groups are specified. If multiple trees are
   configured on the router, multiple RTADDR sub-TLVs are added in one
   or more Router Capabilities TLVs or MT Capabilities TLVs to specify
   individual tree roots. For IPv4 network, RTADDR sub-TLV is used. For
   IPv6, RTADDRV6 sub-TLV is used. Note that the rest of document
   specifies the processes for an IPv4 network only. The processes for
   an IPv6 network are the same.

   Operators may associate one multicast group to more than one tree
   for the redundancy purposes and use the tree priority to specify the
   primary tree preference. Section 3.2 describes the primary tree
   selection.

  3.1. Distribution Tree Computation

   Upon receiving RTADDR sub-TLVs, routers track the tree roots and
   associated multicast groups. When the LSDB stabilizes, routers
   calculate all rooted trees according to the LSDB and shortest path
   algorithm.

   One multicast group may associate to multiple trees. It is important
   that all the routers choose the same tree for a multicast group.
   Section 3.2 and 3.3 describes the tiebreaking rule for primary tree
   selection for a multicast group and parent selection in case of
   equal-cost to potential children.

  3.2. Parent Selection

   It is important, when building a distribution tree, that all routers
   choose the same links for the tree. Therefore, when there are equal
   costs from a potential child node to possible parent nodes, all



Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   routers need to use the same tiebreakers. It is also desirable to
   allow splitting of traffic on as many links as possible in such
   situations. TRILL [RFC6325] achieves this by defining multiple
   rooted trees and using the tiebreakers to enable nodes in these
   trees to choose different parents. This draft uses the same
   tiebreakers as TRILL ([RFC6325] as clarified and updated by section
   3.4 and 3.5 of [RFC7180]), and states as follow:

   If there are k distribution trees in the network, when each router
   computes these trees, the k trees calculated are ordered and
   numbered from 0 to k-1 in ascending order according to root IP
   addresses.

   The tiebreaker rule is: When building the tree number j, remember
   all possible equal cost parents for router N.  After calculating the
   entire "tree" (actually, directed graph), for each router N, if N
   has "p" parents, then order the parents in ascending order according
   to the 7-octet IS-IS ID considered as an unsigned integer, and
   number them starting at zero. For tree j, choose N's parent as
   choice (j-1) mod p.

  3.3. Parallel Local Link Selection

   If there are parallel point-to-point links between two routers, say
   R1 and R2, these parallel links would be visible to R1 and R2, but
   not to other routers. If this bundle of parallel links is included
   in a tree, it is important for R1 and R2 to decide which link to use;
   if the R1-R2 link is the branch for multiple trees, it is desirable
   to split traffic over as many link as possible. However the local
   link selection for a tree is irrelevant to other Routers. Therefore,
   the tiebreaking algorithm need not be visible to any Routers other
   than R1 and R2.

   When there are L parallel links between R1 and R2 and they both are
   on K trees. L links are ordered from 0 to L-1 in ascending order of
   Circuit ID as associated with the adjacency by the router with the
   highest System ID, and K trees are ordered from 0 to K-1 in
   ascending order of root IP addresses. The tiebreaker rule is: for
   tree k, select the link as choice k mod L.

   Note that if multiple distribution trees are configured in a network
   or on a router, better load balance among parallel links through the
   tie-breaking algorithm can be achieved. Otherwise, if there is only
   one tree is configured, then only one link in parallel links can be
   used for the corresponding distribution tree. However, calculating
   and maintaining many trees is resource consuming. Operators need to
   balance between two.



Yong, et al.                                                   [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

  3.4. Tree Selection for a Group

   Routers receive one or more possible multicast group-range-to-tree
   mappings. Each mapping specifies a range of multicast groups. It is
   possible that a group-range is associated with multiple trees that
   may have the same or different priority. When a multicast group-
   range associates with more than one tree, all routers have to select
   the same tree for the group-range. The tiebreaker rules specified in
   PIM [RFC4601] are used. They are:

   o  Perform longest match on group-range to get a list of trees.

   o  Select the tree with highest priority.

   o  If only one tree with the highest priority, select the tree for
      the group-range.

   o  If multiple trees are with the highest priority, use the PIM hash
      function to choose one. PIM hash function is described in section
      4.1.1 in RFC4601 [RFC4601].

  3.5. Pruning a Distribution Tree for a Group

   Routers prune the distribution tree for each associated multicast
   group, i.e. eliminating branches that have no potential downstream
   receivers.  Multi-destination packets SHOULD only be forwarded on
   branches that are not pruned. The assumption here is that a
   multicast source is also a multicast receiver but a multicast
   receiver may not be a multicast source.

   Routers prune the trees based on the groups specified in GRADD-TLV
   from edge routers. Routers maintain a list of adjacency interfaces
   that are on the pruned tree for a multicast group. Among these
   interfaces, one interface may be toward the tree-root router and
   other are toward the egress routers.

  3.6. Reverse Path Forwarding Check (RPFC)

   The routing transients resulting from topology changes can cause
   temporary transient loops in distribution trees. If no precautions
   are taken, and there are fork points in such loops, it is possible
   for multiple copies of a packet to be forwarded. If this is a
   problem for a particular use, a Reverse Path Forwarding Check (RPFC)
   may be implemented.






Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   In this case, the RPFC works by a router determining for each port,
   based on the source and destination IP address of a packet, whether
   the port is a port that router expects to receive such a packet. In
   other words, is there an edge router with reachability to the source
   IP address such that, starting at that router and using the tree
   indicated by the destination IP address, the packet would have
   arrived at the port in question. If so, it is further distributed.
   If not, it is discarded. An RPFC can be implemented at some routers
   and not at others.

  3.7. Forwarding Using a Pruned Distribution Tree

   Forwarding a multi-destination packet follows the pruned tree for
   the group that the packet belongs to. It is done as follows.

   o  If the router receives a multi-destination packet with group IP
      address that does not associated with any tree, the packet MUST
      be dropped.

   o  Else check if the link that the packet arrives on is one of the
      ports in the pruned distribution tree. If not, the packet MUST be
      dropped.

   o  Else perform RPF checking (section 3.5). If it fails, the packet
      SHOULD be dropped.

   o  Else the packet is forwarded onto all the adjacency interfaces in
      the list for the group except the interface where the packet
      receive.

  3.8. Local Forwarding at Edge Router

   Upon receiving a multi-destination packet, besides forwarding it
   along the pruned tree, an edge router may also need to forward the
   packet to the local hosts attached to it. This is referred to as
   local forwarding in this document.

   The local group database is needed to keep track of the group
   membership of the router's directly attached network or host. Each
   entry in the local group database is a [group, network/host] pair,
   which indicates that the attached network has one or more hosts
   belonging to the multicast group. When receiving a multi-destination
   packet, the edge router forwards the packet to the network/host that
   match the [group, network/host] pair in the local group database.

   The local group database is built through the operation of the
   IGMPv3 [RFC3376]. When an edge router becomes Designated Router on


Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   an attached network, say N1, it starts sending periodic IGMPv3 Host
   Membership Queries on the network. Hosts then respond with IGMPv3
   Host Membership Reports, one for each multicast group to which they
   belong. Upon receiving a Host Membership Report for a multicast
   group A, the router updates its local group database by
   adding/refreshing the entry [Group A, N1]. If at a later time
   Reports for Group A cease to be heard on the network, the entry is
   then deleted from the local group database. The Designated further
   sends the LSP message with GRADDR sub-TLV to inform other routers
   about the group memberships in the local group database
   A router MUST ignore Host Membership Reports received on those
   networks where the router has not been elected Designated Router.

   When the solution described in this document applies to the
   underlying network that transports overlay virtual networks
   [NVO3FRWK], A Designated Router further necessarily maintains the
   mapping between an overlay multicast group and a underlying
   multicast group, and performs packet encapsulation/descapsulation
   upon receiving a packet from host or the underlying network.
   Mapping between an overlay multicast group and a underlying
   multicast group can be manually configured, automatically generated
   by an algorithm, or dynamically informed at a Designated Router. The
   same edge router should be selected as the Designated Router for the
   overlay multicast group and underlying multicast group that are
   associated. The mapping method is beyond the scope of this document.

  3.9. Distribution Tree across different IGP Levels

   An IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) network may be designed as a
   multi-area network for the scalability, faster-convergence.
   Multicast sources and listeners may be in the same or different
   areas. The former is a special case of the latter. To support multi-
   destination transport over multi-areas, it is necessary to build a
   distribution tree across areas and prune the tree based on the
   listener locations, i.e. interested edge routers that may reside in
   different areas.

   For an IS-IS multi-area network, there are level1 and level2 routers
   as well as level1/2 (border) routers. A level1 router only has the
   router/topology information for its area. A level2 router has
   router/topology information for level2 area as well as reachability
   information for level1 areas. A border router participates in both
   level1 and level2 areas and has the router/topology information for

   level2 and all directly attached level1 areas but maintains separate
   LSDBs for level2 and each attached level 1 area. Traffic from one


Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   area to another area must traverse through a border router. It is
   possible to have more than one border router between two areas for
   resilience.

   To build a distribution tree across mutli-areas, an operator can
   select a tree-root node for a set of multicast groups. The node can
   be in level1 area or level2 area. All the nodes including border
   nodes in the area compute the distribution tree as described in
   section 3.1-3.4. Border routers automatically select a designated
   forwarder for the multicast groups associated to the tree (see
   below). The border router selected as designate forwarder (DF)
   announces itself as the tree root in the adjacent area if the S bit
   in the RTADDR TLV is clear. The nodes in the adjacent area will
   compute the distribution tree in the same way. Note that a border
   router may be the tree-root in the adjacent area for the multicast
   groups that may associate with different trees. If S bit in the
   RTADDR TLV is set, the rooted distribution tree is only built in the
   area where the root node resides.

   The document specifies following additional rules for a border
   router that supports the multicast mechanism described here. The
   rules apply to the case of the distribution tree across multiple
   areas.

   If a border router is selected as designated forwarder in adjacent
   area for a set of multicast groups, it should perform following:

   o  It MUST track the group-memberships in its participated areas.

   o  It MUST send a summary group membership of one area to the
   adjacent area as of an edge router.

   o  It performs the pruning process in each area, respectively, based
   on the received group-membership LSPs from that area.

   o  When receiving multicast traffic from one area, it forwards the
   packet along the pruned tree into the adjacent area.

   o  Optionally performs reverse path forwarding check (RPFC)

   If a border router is not selected as the designated forwarder for
   the multicast groups, the followings apply:

   o  It SHOULD NOT propagate the group-membership information of one
   area to any other areas. It SHOULD remove the TLV before forwarding
   it.




Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   o  It SHOULD NOT forward multicast group traffic to another adjacent
   area. It SHOULD discard such traffic.

   Selecting a border router as the designated forwarder of multicast
   group traffic may be done manually or automatically.

4. Mobility Support

  4.1. Listener moves from one edge router to another

   When listener moves from one edge router, say E1, to another, say E2.
   E1 will detect the host left and send IGMP query for (S, G). Upon
   the listener join E2, if E2 has not joined (S,G), E1 should announce
   itself as listener to the (S,G) tree.

  4.2. Source host moves from one edge router to another

   Multicast Tree reaches to every edge router, so source host mobility
   is supported naturally. If RPFC is used on a router, the port that
   router expects to receive packet may change. Thus, the notification
   on source host moves is necessary.

5. Backward Compatibility

   If a router does not support the distribution tree function
   described in this document, distribution tree computation MUST NOT
   include this router. This may result the incomplete tree. An
   operator can build a tunnel between two routers, which allows a
   single rooted tree to be built. How to build the tunnel is outside
   scope of this document.

6. Interworking with PIM

   It may be desirable for IS-IS multicast to interwork with PIM on the
   same network domain or different domains. The interworking solution
   is for further evaluation.

7. Security Considerations

   For the further study.

8. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign two new sub-TLV numbers for RTADDR and
   RTADDRV6 as specified in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. These sub-TLVs can be
   used under both the Router Capability (#242) and MT Capability (#144)



Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   TLVs. To avoid confusion, each sub-TLV should be assigned the same
   sub-Type number under each of these two TLVs.

9. Acknowledgements

   Authors like to thank Mike McBride and Linda Dunbar for their
   valuable inputs.

10. References

  10.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC3376] Cain B., etc, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
             3", rfc4604, October 2002

   [RFC4601] Fenner, B., et al, "Protocol Independent multicast -
             Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", rfc4601,
             August 2006

   [RFC5015] Handley, M., et al, "Bidirectional Protocol Independent
             Multicast (BIDIR-PIM", rfc5015, October 2007

   [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., et al, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT)
             Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems
             (IS-ISs)", rfc5120, February 2008

   [RFC6325]  Perlman, R., et al, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base
             Protocol Specification", RFC6325, July 2011

   [RFC7176]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
             D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
             of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, May 2014.





  10.2. Informative References

   [DCMCAST] McBride, M., Lui, H., "Mutilcast in the Data Center
             Overview", draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview, 2012

   [MCASTISS] Ghanvani, A., "Multicast Issues in Networks Using NVO3",
             draft-ghanwani-nvo3-mcast-issues, work in progress


Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   [NVO3FRWK] Lasserre, M., "Framework for DC Network Virtualization",
             draft-ietf-nvo3-framework, work in progress.

   [VXLAN]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., etc, "VXLAN: A Framework for
             Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
             Networks", draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan, work in
             progress


   Authors' Addresses

   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA
   5340 Legacy Drive
   Plano, TX  75025 USA

   Phone:  469-277-5837
   Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com

   Weiguo Hao
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56623144
   Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com


   Donald Eastlake
   Huawei
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

   Phone: +1-508-333-2270
   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

   Andrew Qu
   MediaTek
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA

   Email: laodulaodu@gmail.com


   Jon Hudson
   Brocade
   130 Holger Way



Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    IS-IS Ext. For Distribution Tree            June 2014

   San Jose, CA 95134 USA

   Phone: +1-408-333-4062
   Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com














































Yong, et al.                                                  [Page 17]


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