draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-01.txt   draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-02.txt 
Network Working Group T. Pusateri
Network Working Group Tom Pusateri
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Expires: August 21, 2005 February 2005 Expires: September 6, 2006 March 5, 2006
PIM Sparse-Mode IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis PIM Sparse-Mode IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis
draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-01.txt draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-02
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 RFC 3668. 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
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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 September 6, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol
from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard.
Requirements Language
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC 1264 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage . . . . . 3
2.2 Management Information Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Explicit Security Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4 Implementation Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4.1 XORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4.2 Cisco IOS/IOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4.3 Infosys Technologies, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4.4 Procket Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5 Evidence of Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5.1 Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5.2 XORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5.3 Procket Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7 Authentication Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol
from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. PIM Sparse- from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. PIM Sparse-
Mode was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as RFC Mode was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again
2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as
these documents. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification was then Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM Sparse-Mode
rewritten in whole in order to more fully specify the protocol. It protocol specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more
is this new specification that is to be advanced to Proposed fully specify the protocol. It is this new specification that is to
Standard. be advanced to Proposed Standard.
2. RFC 1264 Requirements 2. RFC 1264 Requirements
Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [ROUTESTD] describes the requirements for Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for
routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement
is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has
been satisfied. been satisfied.
2.1. Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage 2.1 Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage
The authors of the new PIM Sparse-Mode specification have taken The authors of the new PIM Sparse-Mode specification [I-D.ietf-pim-
considerable care to fully specify the protocol operation. It removes sm-v2-new] have taken considerable care to fully specify the protocol
all known ambiguities and tries to normalize corner cases that operation. It removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize
existed in the previous specification. It has been used to provide corner cases that existed in the previous specification. It has been
several interoperable implementations by developers that were not used to provide several interoperable implementations by developers
authors of the specification. These implementations will be that were not authors of the specification. These implementations
described below. will be described below.
2.2. Management Information Base 2.2 Management Information Base
A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC
2934 [PIMMIB]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used 2934 [RFC2934]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used
by network management applications for several years. Updates to this by network management applications for several years. Updates to
MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation this MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation
experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF. experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF.
2.3. Explicit Security Architecture 2.3 Explicit Security Architecture
The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive
security section explaining its security features and limitations. security section explaining its security features and limitations.
Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is
provided for PIM protocol messages. provided for PIM protocol messages.
2.4. Implementation Existence 2.4 Implementation Existence
There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new
protocol specification and there are over 6 independent protocol specification and there are over 6 independent
implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the
specification. The new specification was carefully written to be specification. The new specification was carefully written to be
backward compatible with the old specification allowing backward compatible with the old specification allowing
implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the
new specification. new specification.
The 4 implementations of the new version are described below: The 4 implementations of the new version are described below:
XORP 2.4.1 XORP
The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-
SMv2 as specified in the draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt. It was
written by Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been
available to the public since December 2002. Pavlin is not an
author of the protocol specification. It does not use any other
existing code as a base.
Cisco IOS/IOX The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM
Cisco Systems, Inc. has written an implementation of the new v2 as specified in the draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt. It was
protocol specification which has been deployed in production written by Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been available
routers. There exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There to the public since December 2002. Pavlin is not an author of the
exists an IOX implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was protocol specification. It does not use any other existing code as a
initially written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does base.
not depend on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of
the protocol specification.
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. 2.4.2 Cisco IOS/IOX
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com) have developed a
limited shared tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode Cisco Systems, Inc. has written an implementation of the new protocol
specification including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM specification which has been deployed in production routers. There
join/prune messages, join suppression, and prune override. It was exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There exists an IOX
written by Bharat Joshi <<bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was initially
commercial products. Bharat is not an author of the protocol written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does not depend
on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of the protocol
specification. specification.
Procket Networks 2.4.3 Infosys Technologies, Ltd.
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com) have developed a limited
shared tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification
including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM join/prune messages,
join suppression, and prune override. It was written by Bharat Joshi
<bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in commercial products.
Bharat is not an author of the protocol specification.
2.4.4 Procket Networks
An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by
Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned by
by Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol
speicfication. specification.
2.5. Evidence of Testing 2.5 Evidence of Testing
Cisco 2.5.1 Cisco
The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory
testing as well as testing in production deployments. It is found The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing
to interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the as well as testing in production deployments. It is found to
PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification. interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM
Sparse-Mode protocol specification.
2.5.2 XORP
XORP
The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested
internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has been
been on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is
behavior is tested by connecting it to external packet generators tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers.
and observers. The packet generators are used to generate messages The packet generators are used to generate messages such as IGMP and
such as IGMP and PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data packets. The packet
packets. The packet observers are used to observe the PIM-SM observers are used to observe the PIM-SM control packets generated by
control packets generated by the PIM-SM router under test, and to the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the data packets that
observe the data packets that may be forwarded by that router. In may be forwarded by that router. In addition, the router's command-
addition, the router's command-line interface has been used to line interface has been used to observe its internal state during
observe its internal state during some of the tests. some of the tests.
The test scenarios have been designed to closely follow the The test scenarios have been designed to closely follow the protocol
protocol specification (e.g., a separate test has been created for specification (e.g., a separate test has been created for each event
each event in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test scenarios are
scenarios are described in detail in [XORP-Test]. described in detail in the XORP PIM-SM Test Suite [XORP-TEST].
The major tested features are: The major tested features are:
1. Multicast data forwarding. 1. Multicast data forwarding.
2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery, 2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery,
option exchange, and DR election. option exchange, and DR election.
3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register 3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register
state machine, multicast data packets encapsulation and state machine, multicast data packets encapsulation and
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages, upstream 4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages, upstream
and downstream protocol state machines. The tests consider the and downstream protocol state machines. The tests consider the
following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G) and (S,G,rpt). following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G) and (S,G,rpt).
5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per- 5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per-
interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines. interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines.
6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception and forwarding 6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception and forwarding
of PIM Bootstrap messages, transmission and reception of PIM of PIM Bootstrap messages, transmission and reception of PIM
Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate BSR state Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate BSR state
machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving and using machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving and using the
the RP-Set, semantic fragmentation of BSMs. RP-Set, semantic fragmentation of BSMs.
In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the
PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol
specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the
the Internet Draft. Internet Draft.
Procket Networks 2.5.3 Procket Networks
The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research
and service provider networks and showed interoperability with new The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and
and old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and
old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks
implementations. implementations.
2.6. Suitability 2.6 Suitability
PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast
groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM
uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path
information for multicast tree building but it is not dependent on information for multicast tree building but it is not dependent on
any particular unicast routing protocol. any particular unicast routing protocol.
2.7. Authentication Mechanisms 2.7 Authentication Mechanisms
PIM specifies the use of the IP security authentication header to PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication
provide data integrity protection and groupwise data origin header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data
authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH authentication origin authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH
algorithm and parameters, including the choice of authentication authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of
algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the network authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the
administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged PIM network administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged
messages are outlined in the security considerations section of the PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of
protocol specification. the protocol specification.
3. Acknowledgments 3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
4. Security Considerations
No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing
protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol.
5. Acknowledgments
Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing. Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing.
Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing. Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing.
4. Normative References 6. References
[PIMMIB] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., Fenner, B., 6.1 Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-sm-v2-new]
Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)",
draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11 (work in progress),
October 2004.
[RFC2934] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B. Fenner,
"Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934,
October 2000. October 2000.
5. Informative References 6.2 Informative References
[ROUTESTD] Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991. Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
October 1991.
[XORP] XORP Project, http://www.xorp.org/ [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L.
Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
[XORP-Test] XORP PIM-SM Test Suite, [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
http://www.xorp.org/releases/current/docs/pim_test- Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
suite/pim_testsuite.pdf
6. Author's Address [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
RFC 2362, June 1998.
[XORP] "XORP Project", <http://www.xorp.org>.
[XORP-TEST]
"XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", <http://www.xorp.org/releases/
current/docs/pim_test-suite/pim_testsuite.pdf>.
Author's Address
Tom Pusateri Tom Pusateri
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Avenue 1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: (408) 745-2000 USA
EMail: pusateri@juniper.net
7. Full Copyright Statement Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: pusateri@juniper.net
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Intellectual Property Statement
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
8. Disclaimer The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Copyright Statement
2. RFC 1264 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage . . . . . . 2 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
2.2. Management Information Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
2.3. Explicit Security Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
2.4. Implementation Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.5. Evidence of Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgment
2.6. Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7. Authentication Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
3. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Internet Society.
4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
115 lines changed or deleted 216 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/