draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-08.txt   draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09.txt 
PIM WG Zheng. Zhang PIM WG Zheng. Zhang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track Fangwei. Hu Intended status: Standards Track Fangwei. Hu
Expires: February 16, 2020 Individual Expires: April 27, 2020 Individual
Benchong. Xu Benchong. Xu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
Mankamana. Mishra Mankamana. Mishra
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
August 15, 2019 October 25, 2019
PIM DR Improvement PIM DR Improvement
draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-08.txt draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09.txt
Abstract Abstract
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) is widely Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) is widely
deployed multicast protocol. As deployment for PIM protocol is deployed multicast protocol. As deployment for PIM protocol is
growing day by day, user expects lower traffic loss and faster growing day by day, user expects lower traffic loss and faster
convergence in case of any network failure. This document provides convergence in case of any network failure. This document provides
an extension to the existing protocol which would improve the an extension to the existing protocol which would improve the
stability of the PIM protocol with respect to traffic loss and stability of the PIM protocol with respect to traffic loss and
convergence time when the PIM DR role changes. convergence time when the PIM DR role changes.
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
4.1. Deployment Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Deployment Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Election Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Election Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Sending Hello Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Sending Hello Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Receiving Hello Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Receiving Hello Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. The treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5. The treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Sender side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.6. Sender side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multicast technology is used widely. Many modern technologies, such Multicast technology is used widely. Many modern technologies, such
as IPTV, Net-Meeting, use PIM-SM to facilitate multicast service. as IPTV, Net-Meeting, use PIM-SM to facilitate multicast service.
There are many events that will influence the quality of multicast There are many events that will influence the quality of multicast
services. Like the change of unicast routes, the change of the PIM- services. Like the change of unicast routes, the change of the PIM-
SM DR may cause the loss of multicast packets too. SM DR may cause the loss of multicast packets too.
skipping to change at page 11, line 31 skipping to change at page 11, line 31
used to identify the validity of the DR/BDR candidates. used to identify the validity of the DR/BDR candidates.
Authentication methods mentioned in section 6 RFC7761 can be used. Authentication methods mentioned in section 6 RFC7761 can be used.
And the network administrator should consider the potential BFD And the network administrator should consider the potential BFD
session attack if BFD is used between BDR and DR for DR failure session attack if BFD is used between BDR and DR for DR failure
detection. The security function mentioned in section 9 RFC5880 can detection. The security function mentioned in section 9 RFC5880 can
be used. be used.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate two OptionTypes in TLVs of hello IANA is requested to allocate two new code points from the "PIM-Hello
message: DR Address Option and BDR Address Option. The strings TBD1 Options" registry within the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
and TBD2 will be replaced by the assigned values. Parameters;
+------+--------------------+---------------+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+------+--------------------+---------------+
| TBD1 | DR Address Option | This Document |
| TBD2 | BDR Address Option | This Document |
+------+--------------------+---------------+
Table 1
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Jake Holland, Stig The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Jake Holland, Stig
Venaas for their valuable comments and suggestions. Venaas for their valuable comments and suggestions.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2362] 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 2362, DOI 10.17487/RFC2362,
June 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2362>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case] [I-D.ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case]
Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Bidirectional Forwarding Mirsky, G. and J. Xiaoli, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and Protocol Detection (BFD) for Multi-point Networks and Protocol
Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case", Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Use Case",
draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-02 (work in progress),
July 2019. July 2019.
[I-D.mankamana-pim-bdr] [I-D.mankamana-pim-bdr]
mishra, m., "PIM Backup Designated Router Procedure", mishra, m., Goh, J., and G. Mishra, "PIM Backup Designated
draft-mankamana-pim-bdr-02 (work in progress), April 2019. Router Procedure", draft-mankamana-pim-bdr-03 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/