draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-11.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-12.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola
Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 3913,2189,2201,1584 October 13, 2007 Intended status: Best Current October 17, 2007
(if approved)
Intended status: Best Current
Practice Practice
Expires: April 15, 2008 Expires: April 19, 2008
Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture
draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-11.txt draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-12.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes multicast routing architectures that are This document describes multicast routing architectures that are
currently deployed on the Internet. This document briefly describes currently deployed on the Internet. This document briefly describes
those protocols and references their specifications. those protocols and references their specifications.
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
2.7.2. Host/Router Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.7.2. Host/Router Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.7.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.7.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions . . . . . . . 24
A.1. Reliable Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A.1. Reliable Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2. Multicast Group Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.2. Multicast Group Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document provides a brief overview of multicast routing This document provides a brief overview of multicast routing
architectures that are currently deployed on the Internet and how architectures that are currently deployed on the Internet and how
those protocols fit together. It also describes those multicast those protocols fit together. It also describes those multicast
routing protocols that were never widely deployed or have fallen into routing protocols that were never widely deployed or have fallen into
disuse. A companion document [I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch] describes disuse. A companion document [I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch] describes
skipping to change at page 7, line 25 skipping to change at page 7, line 25
protocol. PIM-DM is no longer in widespread use. protocol. PIM-DM is no longer in widespread use.
Many implementations also support so-called "sparse-dense" Many implementations also support so-called "sparse-dense"
configuration, where Sparse mode is used by default, but Dense is configuration, where Sparse mode is used by default, but Dense is
used for configured multicast group ranges (such as Auto-RP in used for configured multicast group ranges (such as Auto-RP in
Section 2.4.3) only. Lately, many networks have transitioned away Section 2.4.3) only. Lately, many networks have transitioned away
from sparse-dense to only sparse mode. from sparse-dense to only sparse mode.
2.1.3. Bi-directional PIM 2.1.3. Bi-directional PIM
Bi-directional PIM [I-D.ietf-pim-bidir] is a multicast forwarding Bi-directional PIM [RFC5015] is a multicast forwarding protocol that
protocol that establishes a common shared-path for all sources with a establishes a common shared-path for all sources with a single root.
single root. It can be used as an alternative to PIM-SM inside a It can be used as an alternative to PIM-SM inside a single domain.
single domain. It doesn't have data-driven events or data- It doesn't have data-driven events or data-encapsulation. As it
encapsulation. As it doesn't keep source-specific state, it may be doesn't keep source-specific state, it may be an appealing approach
an appealing approach especially in sites with a large number of especially in sites with a large number of sources.
sources.
As of this writing, there is no inter-domain solution to configure a As of this writing, there is no inter-domain solution to configure a
group range to use bi-directional PIM. group range to use bi-directional PIM.
2.1.4. DVMRP 2.1.4. DVMRP
Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [RFC1075] Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [RFC1075]
[I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3] [I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as] was the first [I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3] [I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as] was the first
protocol designed for multicasting. To get around initial deployment protocol designed for multicasting. To get around initial deployment
hurdles, it also included tunneling capabilities which were part of hurdles, it also included tunneling capabilities which were part of
skipping to change at page 19, line 31 skipping to change at page 19, line 31
3. Acknowledgements 3. Acknowledgements
Tutoring a couple multicast-related papers, the latest by Kaarle Tutoring a couple multicast-related papers, the latest by Kaarle
Ritvanen [RITVANEN] convinced the author that up-to-date multicast Ritvanen [RITVANEN] convinced the author that up-to-date multicast
routing and address assignment/allocation documentation is necessary. routing and address assignment/allocation documentation is necessary.
Leonard Giuliano, James Lingard, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Dave Meyer, Leonard Giuliano, James Lingard, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Dave Meyer,
Stig Venaas, Tom Pusateri, Marshall Eubanks, Dino Farinacci, Bharat Stig Venaas, Tom Pusateri, Marshall Eubanks, Dino Farinacci, Bharat
Joshi, Albert Manfredi, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Spencer Dawkins, Sharon Joshi, Albert Manfredi, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Spencer Dawkins, Sharon
Chisholm, John Zwiebel, Dan Romascanu, Thomas Morin, Ron Bonica, and Chisholm, John Zwiebel, Dan Romascanu, Thomas Morin, Ron Bonica,
Prashant Jhingran provided good comments, helping in improving this Prashant Jhingran, and Tim Polk provided good comments, helping in
document. improving this document.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the following registries by adding a IANA is requested to update the following registries by adding a
reference to this document: reference to this document:
o OSPFv2 Option registry: MC-bit o OSPFv2 Option registry: MC-bit
o OSPFv2 Link state type: Group-membership-LSA o OSPFv2 Link state type: Group-membership-LSA
skipping to change at page 20, line 25 skipping to change at page 20, line 25
mentioned protocols is out of scope of this memo. mentioned protocols is out of scope of this memo.
However, there has been analysis of the security of multicast routing However, there has been analysis of the security of multicast routing
infrastructures [RFC4609], IGMP/MLD [I-D.daley-magma-smld-prob], and infrastructures [RFC4609], IGMP/MLD [I-D.daley-magma-smld-prob], and
PIM last-hop issues [I-D.ietf-pim-lasthop-threats]. PIM last-hop issues [I-D.ietf-pim-lasthop-threats].
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-bidir]
Handley, M., "Bi-directional Protocol Independent
Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09 (work in
progress), February 2007.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002. 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery [RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery
Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003. Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.
skipping to change at page 21, line 16 skipping to change at page 21, line 11
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007. January 2007.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, June 2007. RFC 4915, June 2007.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[802.1ak] "IEEE 802.1ak - Multiple Registration Protocol", [802.1ak] "IEEE 802.1ak - Multiple Registration Protocol",
<http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1ak.html>. <http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1ak.html>.
[CGMP] "Cisco Group Management Protocol", [CGMP] "Cisco Group Management Protocol",
<http://www.javvin.com/protocolCGMP.html>. <http://www.javvin.com/protocolCGMP.html>.
[GMRP] "GARP Multicast Registration Protocol", [GMRP] "GARP Multicast Registration Protocol",
<http://www.javvin.com/protocolGMRP.html>. <http://www.javvin.com/protocolGMRP.html>.
skipping to change at page 23, line 39 skipping to change at page 23, line 39
[RFC3488] Wu, I. and T. Eckert, "Cisco Systems Router-port Group [RFC3488] Wu, I. and T. Eckert, "Cisco Systems Router-port Group
Management Protocol (RGMP)", RFC 3488, February 2003. Management Protocol (RGMP)", RFC 3488, February 2003.
[RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security [RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004. Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004.
[RFC3913] Thaler, D., "Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): [RFC3913] Thaler, D., "Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP):
Protocol Specification", RFC 3913, September 2004. Protocol Specification", RFC 3913, September 2004.
[RFC3940] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
"Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable
Multicast (NORM) Protocol", RFC 3940, November 2004.
[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005. Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.
[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery", [RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",
RFC 4286, December 2005. RFC 4286, December 2005.
[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky, [RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol "Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
skipping to change at page 24, line 29 skipping to change at page 24, line 25
[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol [RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006. Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.
[RITVANEN] [RITVANEN]
Ritvanen, K., "Multicast Routing and Addressing", HUT Ritvanen, K., "Multicast Routing and Addressing", HUT
Report, Seminar on Internetworking, May 2004, Report, Seminar on Internetworking, May 2004,
<http://www.tml.hut.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/>. <http://www.tml.hut.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/>.
Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions
A couple of mechanisms have been, and are being specified, to improve A couple of mechanisms have been specified to improve the
the characteristics of the data that can be transported over characteristics of the data that can be transported over multicast.
multicast.
These go beyond the scope of multicast routing, but as reliable We describe those mechanisms that have impact on the multicast
multicast has some relevance, these are briefly mentioned. routing infrastructure, e.g., require or specify router assistance or
involvement in some form. Purely end-to-end or host-based protocols
are out of scope.
A.1. Reliable Multicast A.1. Reliable Multicast
Reliable Multicast Working Group has been working on mostly There has been some work on reliable multicast delivery so that
experimental specifications so that applications requiring reliable applications with reliability requirements could use multicast
delivery characteristics, instead of simple unreliable UDP, could use instead of simple unreliable UDP.
multicast as a distribution mechanism.
One such mechanism is Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) [RFC3208]. Most of the mechanisms are host-based and as such out of scope of
This does not require support from the routers, bur PGM-aware routers this document, but one relevant from multicast routing perspective is
may act in router assistance role in the initial delivery and Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) [RFC3208]. It does not require
potential retransmission of missing data. Another mechanism is support from the routers, bur PGM-aware routers may act in router
Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast Protocol assistance role in the initial delivery and potential retransmission
(NORM) [RFC3940] where routers may as an optional feature provide a of missing data.
more efficient repair functionality.
A.2. Multicast Group Security A.2. Multicast Group Security
Multicast Security Working Group has been working on methods how the Multicast Security Working Group has been working on methods how the
integrity, confidentiality, and authentication of data sent to integrity, confidentiality, and authentication of data sent to
multicast groups can be ensured using cryptographic techniques multicast groups can be ensured using cryptographic techniques
[RFC3740]. [RFC3740].
Author's Address Author's Address
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/