draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-07.txt 
Network Working Group D. Ooms, B. Sales Network Working Group D. Ooms, B. Sales
Internet Draft Alcatel Internet Draft Alcatel
Expiration Date: May 2002 W. Livens Expiration Date: July 2002 W. Livens
Colt Telecom Colt Telecom
A. Acharya A. Acharya
IBM IBM
F. Griffoul F. Griffoul
Ulticom Ulticom
F. Ansari F. Ansari
Bell Labs Bell Labs
November 2001 January 2002
Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
RSVP Resource reSerVation Protocol RSVP Resource reSerVation Protocol
SPT-bit Shortest Path Tree [DEER] SPT-bit Shortest Path Tree [DEER]
SSM Source Specific Multicast SSM Source Specific Multicast
TCP Transmission Control Protocol TCP Transmission Control Protocol
UDP User Datagram Protocol UDP User Datagram Protocol
VC Virtual Circuit VC Virtual Circuit
VCI Virtual Circuit Identifier VCI Virtual Circuit Identifier
VP Virtual Path VP Virtual Path
VPI Virtual Path Identifier VPI Virtual Path Identifier
Changes:
02->05 (problem in IETF db): incorporate WG last call comments
05->06: no changes
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In an MPLS cloud the routes are determined by a L3 routing protocol. 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 These routes can then be mapped onto L2 paths to enhance network
performance. Besides this, MPLS offers a vehicle for enhanced performance. Besides this, MPLS offers a vehicle for enhanced
network services such as QoS/CoS, traffic engineering, etc. network services such as QoS/CoS, traffic engineering, etc.
Current unicast routing protocols generate a same (optimal) shortest Current unicast routing protocols generate a same (optimal) shortest
path in steady state for a certain (source, destination)-pair. Remark path in steady state for a certain (source, destination)-pair. Remark
that unicast protocols can behave slightly different with regard to that unicast protocols can behave slightly different with regard to
skipping to change at page 11, line 42 skipping to change at page 11, line 29
goes around a loop, copies of the packet may be emitted from the loop goes around a loop, copies of the packet may be emitted from the loop
if branches exist in the loop. if branches exist in the loop.
Currently loop detection is a configurable option in LDP and a Currently loop detection is a configurable option in LDP and a
decision on the mechanism for loop prevention is postponed. decision on the mechanism for loop prevention is postponed.
3.8. Mapping of characteristics on existing protocols 3.8. Mapping of characteristics on existing protocols
The above characteristics are summarized in Table 1 for a non- The above characteristics are summarized in Table 1 for a non-
exhaustive list of existing IP multicast routing protocols: DVMRP exhaustive list of existing IP multicast routing protocols: DVMRP
[PUSA], MOSPF [MOY], CBT [BALL], PIM-DM [DEER], PIM-SM [DEE2], SSM [PUSA], MOSPF [MOY], CBT [BALL], PIM-DM [ADAM], PIM-SM [DEER], SSM
[HOLB], SM [PERL]. [HOLB], SM [PERL].
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| |DVMRP |MOSPF |CBT |PIM-DM|PIM-SM|SSM |SM | | |DVMRP |MOSPF |CBT |PIM-DM|PIM-SM|SSM |SM |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|Aggregation |no |no |no |no |no |no |no | |Aggregation |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|Flood & Prune |yes |no |no |yes |no |no |option| |Flood & Prune |yes |no |no |yes |no |no |option|
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|Tree Type |source|source|shared|source|both |source|shared| |Tree Type |source|source|shared|source|both |source|shared|
skipping to change at page 26, line 19 skipping to change at page 25, line 47
Implicit label distribution is not applicable if the FEC-to-label Implicit label distribution is not applicable if the FEC-to-label
binding has been advertised prior to traffic arrival, e.g. explicit binding has been advertised prior to traffic arrival, e.g. explicit
routing (i.e. if all the information necessary to identify the FEC is routing (i.e. if all the information necessary to identify the FEC is
not present in the packet). not present in the packet).
Explicit distribution allows pre-establishment (before the arrival of Explicit distribution allows pre-establishment (before the arrival of
data) of LSPs with topology or request driven triggers. data) of LSPs with topology or request driven triggers.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This document raises no security issues. In general, the use of multicast in an mpls environment poses no
extra security issues beyond the ones that already exist in multicast
and mpls protocols as such.
The protocols described in this document are however not suited to
cross administrative boundaries.
When the multicast tree is determined by an existing multicast
routing protocol (this is the assumption made in this document,
except for the Explict Routing section), clearly no additional
security issues are introduced w.r.t. the shape of the tree (e.g.
unauthorized joining, tapping, blackholing, injecting traffic, ...).
These security issues should have been addressed in the
specifications of the multicast routing protocols.
In the MPLS context it is possible that control messages trigger L2
resource allocations (e.g. LSPs). If security flaws would still be
present in the existing protocols (which possibly are not too harmful
in its original context) the abusive sending of such control messages
can yield more severe DoS attacks.
In case of an "explicit routed" tree that is calculated centrally,
sufficient authentication must be done on the control messages that
set up the tree in the network nodes.
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, Piet Van Mieghem, Philip The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, Piet Van Mieghem, Philip
Dumortier, Hans De Neve, Jan Vanhoutte, Alex Mondrus and Gerard Dumortier, Hans De Neve, Jan Vanhoutte, Alex Mondrus and Gerard
Gastaud for the fruitful discussions and/or their thorough revision Gastaud for the fruitful discussions and/or their thorough revision
of this document. of this document.
References Normative References
Since this is an informational framework document (describing possible
solutions, without selecting a particular one), there are no normative
references.
Informative References
[ACHA] A. Acharya, R. Dighe and F. Ansari, "IP Switching Over Fast ATM [ACHA] A. Acharya, R. Dighe and F. Ansari, "IP Switching Over Fast ATM
Cell Transport (IPSOFACTO) : Switching Multicast flows", IEEE Cell Transport (IPSOFACTO) : Switching Multicast flows", IEEE
Globecom '97. Globecom '97.
[AWDU] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow and V. Sriniva- [ADAM] A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak, Protocol Independent Multicast
san, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Work In Progress Version 2 Dense Mode Specification", Work In Progress.
[ANDE] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette and R. Thomas, [ANDE] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette and R. Thomas,
"LDP specification", RFC3036, January 2001. "LDP specification", RFC3036, January 2001.
[AWDU] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow and V. Sriniva-
san, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC3209,
December 2001
[BALL] A. Ballardie, "Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Archi- [BALL] A. Ballardie, "Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Archi-
tecture", RFC2201, September 1997. tecture", RFC2201, September 1997.
[CONT] A. Conta, P. Doolan, A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on Frame [CONT] A. Conta, P. Doolan, A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on Frame
Relay Networks", RFC3034, January 2001. Relay Networks", RFC3034, January 2001.
[CRAW] E. Crawley, Editor, L. Berger, S. Berson, F. Baker, M. Borden [CRAW] E. Crawley, Editor, L. Berger, S. Berson, F. Baker, M. Borden
and J. Krawczyk, "A Framework for Integrated Services and RSVP and J. Krawczyk, "A Framework for Integrated Services and RSVP
over ATM", RFC2382, August 1998. over ATM", RFC2382, August 1998.
[DAVI] B. Davie, J. Lawrence, K. McCloghrie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, G. [DAVI] B. Davie, J. Lawrence, K. McCloghrie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, G.
Swallow and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC switching", Swallow and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC switching",
RFC3035, January 2001. RFC3035, January 2001.
[DEER] S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S. [DEER] S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S.
Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma and L Wei, Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma and L Wei,
"Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997. Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
[DEE2] S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, Protocol [FARI] D. Farinacci, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen and T. Qian, "Using PIM to
Independent Multicast Version 2 Dense Mode Specification", Work Distribute MPLS Labels for Multicast Routes", Work In Progress.
In Progress.
[FARI] D. Farinacci, Y. Rekhter and E. Rosen, "Using PIM to Distribute
MPLS Labels for Multicast Routes", Work In Progress.
[FENN] W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, IGMP, version [FENN] W. Fenner, "Internet Group Management Protocol, IGMP, version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[GARR] M. Garrett and M. Borden, "Interoperation of Controlled-Load [GARR] M. Garrett and M. Borden, "Interoperation of Controlled-Load
Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", RFC2381, August 1998. Service and Guaranteed Service with ATM", RFC2381, August 1998.
[HOLB] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", Work [HOLB] H. Holbrook, B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", Work
In Progress. In Progress.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/