draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-08.txt   rfc5496.txt 
PIM WG IJ. Wijnands Network Working Group IJ. Wijnands
Internet-Draft A. Boers Request for Comments: 5496 A. Boers
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen Category: Standards Track E. Rosen
Expires: July 19, 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 15, 2009
The RPF Vector TLV
draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-08
Status of this Memo
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 The Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2009. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document.
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a use of the PIM Join Attribute as defined in This document describes a use of the Protocol Independent Multicast
draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes [RFC5384] which enables PIM to build (PIM) Join Attribute as defined in RFC 5384, which enables PIM to
multicast trees through an MPLS-enabled network, even if that build multicast trees through an MPLS-enabled network, even if that
network's IGP does not have a route to the source of the tree. network's IGP does not have a route to the source of the tree.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Specification of Requirements ...................................3
3. Use of the RPF Vector TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use of the RPF Vector TLV .......................................3
3.1. Attribute and shared tree joins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Attribute and Shared Tree Joins ............................4
3.2. Attribute and Bootstrap messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Attribute and Bootstrap Messages ...........................4
3.3. The Vector Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. The Vector Attribute .......................................4
3.3.1. Inserting a Vector Attribute in a Join . . . . . . . . 5 3.3.1. Inserting a Vector Attribute in a Join ..............4
3.3.2. Processing a Received Vector Attribute . . . . . . . . 5 3.3.2. Processing a Received Vector Attribute ..............5
3.3.3. Vector Attribute and Asserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.3. Vector Attribute and Asserts ........................5
3.3.4. Vector Attribute and Join suppression . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.4. Vector Attribute and Join Suppression ...............6
4. Vector Attribute TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Vector Attribute TLV Format .....................................6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations .............................................7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations .........................................7
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Acknowledgments .................................................7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Normative References ............................................7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Specification of Requirements
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 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is sometimes convenient to distinguish the routers of a particular It is sometimes convenient to distinguish the routers of a particular
network into two categories: "edge routers" and "core routers". The network into two categories: "edge routers" and "core routers". The
edge routers attach directly to users or to other networks, but the edge routers attach directly to users or to other networks, but the
core routers attach only to other routers of the same network. If core routers attach only to other routers of the same network. If
the network is MPLS-enabled, then any unicast packet which needs to the network is MPLS-enabled, then any unicast packet that needs to
travel outside the network can be "tunneled" via MPLS from one edge travel outside the network can be "tunneled" via MPLS from one edge
router to another. To handle a unicast packet which must travel router to another. To handle a unicast packet that must travel
outside the network, an edge router needs to know which of the other outside the network, an edge router needs to know which of the other
edge routers is the best exit point from the network for that edge routers is the best exit point from the network for that
packet's destination IP address. The core routers, however, do not packet's destination IP address. The core routers, however, do not
need to have any knowledge of routes which lead outside the network; need to have any knowledge of routes that lead outside the network;
as they handle only tunneled packets, they only need to know how to as they handle only tunneled packets, they only need to know how to
reach the edge routers and the other core routers. reach the edge routers and the other core routers.
Consider, for example, the case where the network is an Autonomous Consider, for example, the case where the network is an Autonomous
System (AS), the edge routers are EBGP speakers, the core routers may System (AS), the edge routers are External Border Gateway Protocol
be said to constitute a "BGP-free core". The edge routers distribute (EBGP) speakers, the core routers may be said to constitute a "BGP-
BGP routes to each other, but not to the core routers. free core". The edge routers distribute BGP routes to each other,
but not to the core routers.
However, when multicast packets are considered, the strategy of However, when multicast packets are considered, the strategy of
keeping the core routers free of "external" routes is more keeping the core routers free of "external" routes is more
problematic. When using PIM Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC4601], PIM problematic. When using PIM Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC4601], PIM
Source-Specific Mode (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607] or Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR- Source-Specific Mode (PIM-SSM) [RFC4607], or Bidirectional PIM
PIM) [RFC5015] to create a multicast distribution tree for a (BIDIR-PIM) [RFC5015] to create a multicast distribution tree for a
particular multicast group, one wants the core routers to be full particular multicast group, one wants the core routers to be full
participants in the PIM protocol, so that multicasting can be done participants in the PIM protocol, so that multicasting can be done
efficiently in the core. This means that the core routers must be efficiently in the core. This means that the core routers must be
able to correctly process PIM Join messages for the group, which in able to correctly process PIM Join messages for the group, which in
turn means that the core routers must be able to send the Join turn means that the core routers must be able to send the Join
messages towards the root of the distribution tree. If the root of messages towards the root of the distribution tree. If the root of
the tree lies outside the network's borders (e.g., is in a different the tree lies outside the network's borders (e.g., is in a different
AS), and the core routers do not maintain routes to external AS), and the core routers do not maintain routes to external
destinations, then the PIM Join messages cannot be processed, and the destinations, then the PIM Join messages cannot be processed, and the
multicast distribution tree cannot be created. multicast distribution tree cannot be created.
In order to allow PIM to work properly in an environment where the In order to allow PIM to work properly in an environment where the
core routers do not maintain external routes, a PIM extension is core routers do not maintain external routes, a PIM extension is
needed. When an edge router sends a PIM Join message into the core, needed. When an edge router sends a PIM Join message into the core,
it MUST include in that message a "Vector" which specifies the IP it MUST include in that message a "Vector" that specifies the IP
address of the next edge router along the path to the root of the address of the next edge router along the path to the root of the
multicast distribution tree. The core routers can then process the multicast distribution tree. The core routers can then process the
Join message by sending it towards the specified edge router (i.e., Join message by sending it towards the specified edge router (i.e.,
toward the Vector). In effect, the Vector serves as an attribute, toward the Vector). In effect, the Vector serves as an attribute,
within a particular network, for the root of the tree. within a particular network, for the root of the tree.
This document defines a new TLV in the PIM Join Attribute message This document defines a new TLV in the PIM Join Attribute message
[RFC5384]. It consists of a single Vector which identifies the exit [RFC5384]. It consists of a single Vector that identifies the exit
point of the network. point of the network.
2. Specification of Requirements
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 [RFC2119].
3. Use of the RPF Vector TLV 3. Use of the RPF Vector TLV
Before a router can start forwarding multicast packets, it is Before a router can start forwarding multicast packets, it is
necessary to build a forwarding tree by sending PIM Joins hop by hop. necessary to build a forwarding tree by sending PIM Joins hop-by-hop.
Each router in the path creates a forwarding state and propagates the Each router in the path creates a forwarding state and propagates the
Join towards the root of the forwarding tree. The building of this Join towards the root of the forwarding tree. The building of this
tree is receiver driven. See Figure 1. tree is receiver driven. See Figure 1.
------------------ BGP ----------------- ------------------ BGP -----------------
| | | |
[S]---( Edge 1)--(Core 1)---( Core )--(Core 2)---( Edge 2 )---[R] [S]---( Edge 1)--(Core 1)---( Core )--(Core 2)---( Edge 2 )---[R]
<--- (S,G) Join <--- (S,G) Join
Figure 1 Figure 1
In this example, the 2 edge routers are BGP speakers. The core In this example, the two edge routers are BGP speakers. The core
routers are not BGP speakers and do not have any BGP distributed routers are not BGP speakers and do not have any BGP distributed
routes. The route to S is a BGP distributed route, hence is known to routes. The route to S is a BGP distributed route; hence, it is
the edge but not to the core. The Edge 2 router determines the known to the edge but not to the core. The Edge 2 router determines
interface leading to S, and sends a PIM Join to the upstream router. the interface leading to S, and sends a PIM Join to the upstream
In this example, though, the upstream router is a core router, with router. In this example, though, the upstream router is a core
no route to S. Without the PIM extensions specified in this document, router, with no route to S. Without the PIM extensions specified in
the core router cannot determine where the send the Join, so the tree this document, the core router cannot determine where the send the
cannot be constructed. Join, so the tree cannot be constructed.
To allow the core router to participate in the construction of the To allow the core router to participate in the construction of the
tree, the Edge 2 router will include an attribute field in the PIM tree, the Edge 2 router includes an "RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding)
Join. In this example, the Attribute field will contain the IP Vector" TLV in the PIM Join Attribute [RFC5384] of the PIM Join. In
address of Edge 1. Edge 2 then forwards the PIM Join towards Edge 1. this example, the RPF Vector TLV will contain the IP address of Edge
The intermediate core routers do their RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) 1. Edge 2 forwards the PIM Join towards Edge 1. Each intermediate
check [RFC4601] on the Attribute (IP address of Edge 1) rather than core router does its RPF check [RFC4601] on the address contained in
the Source, this allows the tree to be constructed. the RPF Vector TLV (i.e., on the IP address of Edge 1), instead of
doing the RPF check on the address S. This allows the tree to be
constructed.
3.1. Attribute and shared tree joins 3.1. Attribute and Shared Tree Joins
In the example above we build a source tree to illustrate the In the example above, we build a source tree to illustrate the
attribute behavior. The attribute is however not restricted to attribute behavior. Use of the attribute is, however, not restricted
source tree only. The tree may also be constructed towards a to the construction of source trees. It may also be used to
Rendezvous Point (RP) IP address. The RP IP address is used in a construct a shared tree. In this case, the RPF Vector TLV contains
similar way as the Source in the example above. PIM Attribute the IP address of a Rendezvous Point (RP). Procedures defined in
procedures defined for sources are equally applicable to (*,G) and this document for (S,G) Joins are equally applicable to (*,G) and
(*,*,RP) joins unless otherwise noted. (*,*,RP) Joins unless otherwise noted.
3.2. Attribute and Bootstrap messages 3.2. Attribute and Bootstrap Messages
The RPF vector does not apply to BSR bootstrap messages. To allow There is no way to carry an RPF Vector TLV in a Bootstrap Router
BSR messages to be forwarded across a core where the BSR IP address (BSR) bootstrap message. The procedures in this document do not
is not routable in the core a solution needs to be developed for BSR. define a way for BSR messages to be forwarded across a core in which
the BSP IP address is not routable.
3.3. The Vector Attribute 3.3. The Vector Attribute
3.3.1. Inserting a Vector Attribute in a Join 3.3.1. Inserting a Vector Attribute in a Join
In the example of Figure 1, when the Edge 2 router looks up the route In the example of Figure 1, when the Edge 2 router looks up the route
to the source of the multicast distribution tree, it will find a BGP- to the source of the multicast distribution tree, it will find a
distributed route whose "BGP next-hop" is Edge 1. Edge 2 then looks BGP-distributed route whose "BGP next-hop" is Edge 1. Edge 2 then
up the route to Edge 1 to find interface and PIM adjacency which is looks up the route to Edge 1 to find the next hop to the source,
the next hop to the source, namely Core 2. namely Core 2.
When Edge 2 sends a PIM Join to Core 2, it includes a Vector When Edge 2 sends a PIM Join to Core 2, it includes a Vector
Attribute specifying the address of Edge 1. Core 2, and subsequent Attribute specifying the address of Edge 1. Core 2, and subsequent
core routers, will forwarding the Join along the Vector (i.e, towards core routers, will forwarding the Join along the Vector (i.e.,
Edge 1) instead of trying to forward it towards S. towards Edge 1) instead of trying to forward it towards S.
Whether an attribute is actually needed depends on whether the Core Whether an attribute is actually needed depends on whether the Core
routers have a route to the source of the multicast tree. How the routers have a route to the source of the multicast tree. How the
Edge router knows whether or not this is the case (and thus how the Edge router knows whether or not this is the case (and thus how the
Edge router determines whether or not to insert an attribute field) Edge router determines whether or not to insert an attribute field)
is outside the scope of this document. is outside the scope of this document.
3.3.2. Processing a Received Vector Attribute 3.3.2. Processing a Received Vector Attribute
When processing a received PIM Join which contains a Vector When processing a received PIM Join that contains a Vector Attribute,
Attribute, a router MUST first check to see if the Vector IP address a router MUST first check to see if the Vector IP address is one of
is one of its own IP addresses. If so, the Vector Attribute is its own IP addresses. If so, the Vector Attribute is discarded, and
discarded, and not passed further upstream. Otherwise, the Vector not passed further upstream. Otherwise, the Vector Attribute is used
Attribute is used to find the route to the source, and is passed to find the route to the source, and is passed along when a PIM Join
along when a PIM Join is sent upstream. Note that a router which is sent upstream. Note that a router that receives a Vector
receives a Vector Attribute MUST use it, even if that router happens Attribute MUST use it, even if that router happens to have a route to
to have a route to the source. A router which discards a Vector the source. A router that discards a Vector Attribute MAY of course
Attribute MAY of course insert a new Vector Attribute. This would insert a new Vector Attribute. This would typically happen if a PIM
typically happen if a PIM Join needed to pass through a sequence of Join needed to pass through a sequence of Edge routers, each pair of
Edge routers, each pair of which is separated by a core which does which is separated by a core that does not have external routes. In
not have external routes. In the absence of periodic refreshment, the absence of periodic refreshment, Vectors expire along with the
Vectors expire along with the corresponding (S,G) state. corresponding (S,G) state.
3.3.3. Vector Attribute and Asserts 3.3.3. Vector Attribute and Asserts
A PIM Assert message includes the routing protocol's "metric" to the A PIM Assert message includes the routing protocol's "metric" to the
source of the tree. This information is used in the selection of the source of the tree. This information is used in the selection of the
assert winner. If a PIM Join is being sent towards a Vector, rather Assert winner. If a PIM Join is being sent towards a Vector, rather
than towards the source, the Assert message MUST have the metric to than towards the source, the Assert message MUST have the metric to
the Vector instead of the metric to the source. The Assert message the Vector instead of the metric to the source. The Assert message
however does not have an attribute field and does not mention the however does not have an attribute field and does not mention the
Vector. Vector.
A router may change its upstream neighbor on a particular multicast A router may change its upstream neighbor on a particular multicast
tree as the result of receiving Assert messages. However a Vector tree as the result of receiving Assert messages. However, a Vector
Attribute MUST NOT be sent in a PIM Join to an upstream neighbor Attribute MUST NOT be sent in a PIM Join to an upstream neighbor that
which is chosen as the result of an Assert processing, if that is chosen as the result of Assert processing, if that neighbor is
neighbor is different than the original upstream neighbor. different than the original upstream neighbor. Reachability of the
Reachability of the Vector is only guaranteed by the router that Vector is only guaranteed by the router that advertises reachability
advertises reachability to the Vector in its IGP. If the assert to the Vector in its IGP. If the Assert winner upstream is not the
winner upstream is not the real preferred next-hop, it is possible real preferred next-hop, it is possible that the Assert winner does
that the assert winner does not know the path to the Vector. In the not know the path to the Vector. In the worst case the Assert winner
worst case the assert winner has a route to the Vector that is on the has a route to the Vector that is on the same interface where the
same interface where the assert was won. That will point the RPF Assert was won. That will point the RPF interface to that interface
interface to that interface and will result in the O-list being NULL. and will result in the O-list being NULL. The Vector Attribute
The Vector attribute therefore MUST NOT be inserted if the RPF therefore MUST NOT be inserted if the RPF neighbor was chosen via an
neighbor was chosen via an assert process and the RPF neighbor is Assert process and the RPF neighbor is different from the RPF
different from the RPF neighbor that would have been selected via the neighbor that would have been selected via the local routing table.
local routing table. In all other cases the Vector MUST be included In all other cases, the Vector MUST be included in the Join message.
in the Join message.
3.3.4. Vector Attribute and Join suppression 3.3.4. Vector Attribute and Join Suppression
If a router receives a PIM join on the upstream LAN interface for a If a router receives a PIM Join on the upstream LAN interface for a
particular multicast state, join suppression may be applied if that particular multicast state, Join suppression may be applied if that
PIM join is targeted to the same upstream neighbor. Which router(s) PIM Join is targeted to the same upstream neighbor. Which router(s)
will suppress their PIM join is dependant on timing and is will suppress their PIM Join is dependent on timing and is
unpredictable. Downstream routers on a LAN MAY include different RPF unpredictable. Downstream routers on a LAN MAY include different RPF
vectors in the PIM joins. Therefore an upstream router on that LAN Vectors in the PIM Joins. Therefore, an upstream router on that LAN
may receive and use different RPF vectors over time to reach the may receive and use different RPF Vectors over time to reach the
destination (depending on which downstream router(s) suppressed their destination (depending on which downstream router(s) suppressed their
Join). To make the upstream router behavior more predictable the RPF Join). To make the upstream router behavior more predictable, the
vector address MUST be used as additional condition to the join RPF Vector address MUST be used as additional condition to the Join
suppression logic. Only if the RPF vector in the PIM join matches suppression logic. Only if the RPF Vector in the PIM Join matches
the RPF vector in the multicast state, the suppression logic is the RPF Vector in the multicast state, the suppression logic is
applied. It is also possible to disable join suppression on that applied. It is also possible to disable Join suppression on that
LAN. LAN.
4. Vector Attribute TLV Format 4. Vector Attribute TLV Format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|S| Type | Length | Value |F|S| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-....... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-.......
F bit F bit
----- Forward Unknown TLV. If this bit is set, the TLV is forwarded
Forward Unknown TLV. If this bit is set the TLV is forwarded regardless of whether the router understands the Type. If the TLV
regardless of whether the router understands the Type. If the TLV is is known, the F bit is ignored.
known the F bit is ignored.
S bit S bit
----- Bottom of Stack. If this bit is set, then this is the last TLV in
Bottom of Stack. If this bit is set then this is the last the stack.
TLV in the stack.
Type Type
----
The Vector Attribute type is 0. The Vector Attribute type is 0.
Length Length
------
Length depending on Address Family of Encoded-Unicast address. Length depending on Address Family of Encoded-Unicast address.
Value Value
-----
Encoded-Unicast address. Encoded-Unicast address.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
An new attribute type from the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry IANA has assigned the value 0 to the RPF Vector in the "PIM Join
needs to be assigned by IANA for the RPF Vector. The proposed value Attribute Types" registry.
is 0.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security of the RPF Vector Attribute is only guaranteed by the Security of the RPF Vector Attribute is only guaranteed by the
security of the PIM packet, so the security considerations for PIM security of the PIM packet, so the security considerations for PIM
join packets as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601] apply here. Join packets as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601] apply here.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Dino Farinacci for The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Dino Farinacci for
their initial ideas on this topic and Su Haiyang for the comments on their initial ideas on this topic and Su Haiyang for the comments on
the draft. the document.
8. Normative References 8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007. PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
[RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol [RFC5384] Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC
RFC 5384, November 2008. 5384, November 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnands IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a De kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831 Diegem 1831
Belgium Belgium
Email: ice@cisco.com EMail: ice@cisco.com
Arjen Boers Arjen Boers
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Avda. Diagonal, 682 Avda. Diagonal, 682
Barcelona 08034 Barcelona 08034
Spain Spain
Email: aboers@cisco.com EMail: aboers@cisco.com
Eric Rosen Eric Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, Ma 01719 Boxborough, Ma 01719
Email: erosen@cisco.com EMail: erosen@cisco.com
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
163 lines changed or deleted 142 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/