draft-ietf-pim-drlb-00.txt   draft-ietf-pim-drlb-01.txt 
Network Working Group Yiqun Cai Network Working Group Yiqun Cai
Internet-Draft Sri Vallepalli Internet-Draft Sri Vallepalli
Intended status: Standards Track Heidi Ou Intended status: Standards Track Heidi Ou
Expires: September 7, 2012 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 27, 2012 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Andy Green Andy Green
British Telecom British Telecom
March 6, 2012 March 26, 2012
Protocol Independent Multicast DR Load Balancing Protocol Independent Multicast DR Load Balancing
draft-ietf-pim-drlb-00.txt draft-ietf-pim-drlb-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
On a multi-access network such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers On a multi-access network such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers
is elected as a Designated Routers (DR). The PIM DR has two roles in is elected as a Designated Router (DR). The PIM DR has two roles in
the PIM protocol. On the first hop network, the PIM DR is the PIM protocol. On the first hop network, the PIM DR is
responsible for registering an active source to the RP if the group responsible for registering an active source to the RP if the group
is operated in PIM SM. On the last hop network, the PIM DR is is operated in PIM SM. On the last hop network, the PIM DR is
responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding
traffic to these listeners if the group is operated in PIM SM/SSM/DM. traffic to these listeners if the group is operated in PIM SM/SSM/DM.
In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM protocol that In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM protocol that
allows multiple of these last hop routers to be selected so that the allows more than one of these last hop routers to be selected so that
forwarding load can be distributed to and handled among these the forwarding load can be distributed to and handled among these
routers. A router responsible for forwarding for a particular group routers. A router responsible for forwarding for a particular group
is called a Group Designated Router (GDR). is called a Group Designated Router (GDR).
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 September 7, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Functional Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Functional Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. GDR Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. GDR Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Hash Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Hash Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. PIM Hello Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. PIM Hello Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (LBGDR) Hello TLV . . . . . . . 8 5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (LBGDR) Hello TLV . . . . . . . 8
5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks (LBM) Hello TLV . . . . . 9 5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks (LBM) Hello TLV . . . . . 9
6. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. PIM Assert Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. PIM Assert Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Terminologies 1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
With respect to PIM, this document follows the terminology that has With respect to PIM, this document follows the terminology that has
been defined in [RFC4601]. been defined in [RFC4601].
This document also introduces the following new acronyms: This document also introduces the following new acronyms:
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
o GDR Candidate: a last hop router that has potential to become a o GDR Candidate: a last hop router that has potential to become a
GDR. A GDR Candidate must have the same DR priority as the DR GDR. A GDR Candidate must have the same DR priority as the DR
router. It must send and process received new PIM Hello Options router. It must send and process received new PIM Hello Options
as defined in this document. There might be more than one GDR as defined in this document. There might be more than one GDR
candidate on a LAN. But only one can become GDR for a specific candidate on a LAN. But only one can become GDR for a specific
multicast group. multicast group.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
On a multi-access network such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers On a multi-access network such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers
is elected as a Designated Routers (DR). The PIM DR has two roles in is elected as a Designated Router (DR). The PIM DR has two roles in
the PIM protocol. On the first hop network, the PIM DR is the PIM protocol. On the first hop network, the PIM DR is
responsible for registering an active source to the RP if the group responsible for registering an active source with the RP if the group
is operated in PIM SM. On the last hop network, the PIM DR is is operated in PIM SM. On the last hop network, the PIM DR is
responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding to responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding to
these listeners if the group is operated in PIM SM/SSM/DM. these listeners if the group is operated in PIM SM/SSM/DM.
Considering the following last hop network in Figure 1. Consider the following last hop network in Figure 1:
( core networks ) ( core networks )
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
| | | | | |
--(last hop LAN)-- --(last hop LAN)--
| |
| |
(many receivers) (many receivers)
Figure 1: Last Hop Network Figure 1: Last Hop Network
Assuming R1 is elected as the Designated Router. According to Assume R1 is elected as the Designated Router. According to
[RFC4601], R1 will be responsible for forwarding to the last hop LAN. [RFC4601], R1 will be responsible for forwarding to the last hop LAN.
In addition to keeping track of IGMP and MLD membership reports, R1 In addition to keeping track of IGMP and MLD membership reports, R1
is also responsible for initiating the creation of source and/or is also responsible for initiating the creation of source and/or
shared trees towards the senders or the RPs. shared trees towards the senders or the RPs.
Forcing sole data plane forwarding responsibility on the PIM DR Forcing sole data plane forwarding responsibility on the PIM DR
proves a limitation in the protocol. In comparison, even though an proves a limitation in the protocol. In comparison, even though an
OSPF DR, or an IS-IS DIS, handles additional duties while running the OSPF DR, or an IS-IS DIS, handles additional duties while running the
OSPF or IS-IS protocols, they are not required to be solely OSPF or IS-IS protocols, they are not required to be solely
responsible for forwarding packets for the network. On the other responsible for forwarding packets for the network. On the other
hand, on a last hop LAN, only the PIM DR is asked to forward packets hand, on a last hop LAN, only the PIM DR is asked to forward packets
while the other routers handle only control traffic (and perhaps while the other routers handle only control traffic (and perhaps drop
dropping packets due to RPF failures). The forwarding load of a last packets due to RPF failures). The forwarding load of a last hop LAN
hop LAN is concentrated on a single router. is concentrated on a single router.
This leads to several issues. One of the issues is that the This leads to several issues. One of the issues is that the
aggregated bandwidth will be limited to what R1 can handle towards aggregated bandwidth will be limited to what R1 can handle towards
this particular interface. These days, it is very common that the this particular interface. These days, it is very common that the
last hop LAN usually consists of switches that run IGMP/MLD or PIM last hop LAN usually consists of switches that run IGMP/MLD or PIM
snooping. This allows the forwarding of multicast packets to be snooping. This allows the forwarding of multicast packets to be
restricted only to segments leading to receivers who have indicated restricted only to segments leading to receivers who have indicated
their interest in multicast groups using either IGMP or MLD. The their interest in multicast groups using either IGMP or MLD. The
emergence of the switched Ethernet allows the aggregated bandwidth to emergence of the switched Ethernet allows the aggregated bandwidth to
exceed, some times by a large number, that of a single link. For exceed, some times by a large number, that of a single link. For
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
+ switch + + switch +
+ + + +
+=gi4===gi5===gi6=+ +=gi4===gi5===gi6=+
| | | | | |
H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3
Figure 2: Last Hop Network with Ethernet Switch Figure 2: Last Hop Network with Ethernet Switch
Let us assume that each individual link is a Gigabit Ethernet. Each Let us assume that each individual link is a Gigabit Ethernet. Each
router, R1, R2 and R3, and the switch have enough forwarding capacity router, R1, R2 and R3, and the switch have enough forwarding capacity
that can handle hundreds of Gigabits of data. to handle hundreds of Gigabits of data.
Let us further assume that each of the hosts requests 500 mbps of Let us further assume that each of the hosts requests 500 mbps of
data and different traffic is requested by each host. This data and different traffic is requested by each host. This
represents a total 1.5 gbps of data, which is under what each switch represents a total 1.5 gbps of data, which is under what each switch
or the combined uplink bandwidth across the routers can handle, even or the combined uplink bandwidth across the routers can handle, even
under failure of a single router. under failure of a single router.
On the other hand, the link between R1 and switch, via port gi0, can On the other hand, the link between R1 and switch, via port gi0, can
only handle a throughput of 1gbps. And if R1 is the only router, the only handle a throughput of 1gbps. And if R1 is the only router, the
PIM DR elected using the procedure defined by RFC 4601, at least 500 PIM DR elected using the procedure defined by RFC 4601, at least 500
skipping to change at page 5, line 51 skipping to change at page 5, line 51
and at the same time, H2 and H3 each requests 300 mbps of different and at the same time, H2 and H3 each requests 300 mbps of different
multicast data. Once again packet drop happens on R1 while in the multicast data. Once again packet drop happens on R1 while in the
mean time, there is sufficient forwarding capacity left on R2 and R3 mean time, there is sufficient forwarding capacity left on R2 and R3
and link capacity between the switch and R2/R3. and link capacity between the switch and R2/R3.
Another important issue is related to failover. If R1 is the only Another important issue is related to failover. If R1 is the only
forwarder on the last hop network, in the event of a failure when R1 forwarder on the last hop network, in the event of a failure when R1
goes out of service, multicast forwarding for the entire network has goes out of service, multicast forwarding for the entire network has
to be rebuilt by the newly elected PIM DR. However, if there was a to be rebuilt by the newly elected PIM DR. However, if there was a
way that allowed multiple routers to forward to the network for way that allowed multiple routers to forward to the network for
different groups, failure to one of the routers would only lead to different groups, failure of one of the routers would only lead to
disruption to a subset of the flows, therefore improving the overall disruption to a subset of the flows, therefore improving the overall
resilience of the network. resilience of the network.
In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM protocol that In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM protocol that
allows multiple of these routers, called Group Designated Router allows more than one of these routers, called Group Designated Router
(GDR) to be selected so that the forwarding load can be distributed (GDR) to be selected so that the forwarding load can be distributed
to and handled by a number of routers. to and handled by a number of routers.
3. Applicability 3. Applicability
The proposed change described in this draft applies to PIM last hop The proposed change described in this specification applies to PIM
routers only. last hop routers only.
It doesn't alter the behavior of a PIM DR on the first hop network. It does not alter the behavior of a PIM DR on the first hop network.
This is because the source tree is built using the IP address of the This is because the source tree is built using the IP address of the
sender, not the IP address of the PIM DR that sends the registers sender, not the IP address of the PIM DR that sends the registers
towards the RP. The load balancing between first hop routers can be towards the RP. The load balancing between first hop routers can be
achieved naturally if an IGP provides equal cost multiple paths achieved naturally if an IGP provides equal cost multiple paths
(which it usually does in practice). And distributing the load to do (which it usually does in practice). And distributing the load to do
registering doesn't justify the additional complexity required to registering does not justify the additional complexity required to
support it. support it.
4. Functional Overview 4. Functional Overview
In existing PIM DR election, when multiple last hop routers are In the existing PIM DR election, when multiple last hop routers are
connected to a multi-access network (for example, an Ethernet), one connected to a multi-access network (for example, an Ethernet), one
of them is selected to act as PIM DR. The PIM DR is responsible for of them is selected to act as PIM DR. The PIM DR is responsible for
sending Join/Prune messages to the RP or source. To elect the PIM sending Join/Prune messages to the RP or source. To elect the PIM
DR, each PIM router on the network examines the received PIM Hello DR, each PIM router on the network examines the received PIM Hello
messages and compares its DR priority and IP address with those of messages and compares its DR priority and IP address with those of
its neighbors. The router with the highest DR priority is the PIM its neighbors. The router with the highest DR priority is the PIM
DR. If there are multiple such routers, IP address is used as the DR. If there are many such routers, their IP addresses are used as
tie breaker, as described in [RFC4601]. the tie breaker, as described in [RFC4601].
In order to share forwarding load among last hop routers, besides the In order to share forwarding load among last hop routers, besides the
normal PIM DR election, the GDR is also elected on the last hop normal PIM DR election, the GDR is also elected on the last hop
multi-access network. There is only one PIM DR on the multi-access multi-access network. There is only one PIM DR on the multi-access
network, but there might be multiple GDR candidates. network, but there might be multiple GDR candidates.
For each multicast group, a hash algorithm is used to select one of For each multicast group, a hash algorithm is used to select one of
the routers to be the GDR. Hash Masks are defined for Source, Group the routers to be the GDR. Hash Masks are defined for Source, Group
and RP separately, in order to handle different PIM modes. The masks and RP separately, in order to handle different PIM modes. The masks
are announced in PIM Hello as a new Load Balancing Hash Mask TLV (LBM are announced in PIM Hello as a Load Balancing Hash Mask TLV (LBM
TLV). Last hop routers with this new TLV and with the same DR TLV). Last hop routers with this new TLV and with the same DR
priority as the PIM DR are GDR candidates. priority as the PIM DR are GDR candidates.
A simple hash algorithm based on the announced Source, Group or RP A simple hash algorithm based on the announced Source, Group or RP
masks allow one GDR to be assigned to a corresponding multicast masks allow one GDR to be assigned to a corresponding multicast
group, and that GDR is responsible for initiating the creation of group, and that GDR is responsible for initiating the creation of the
multicast forwarding tree for the group. multicast forwarding tree for the group.
4.1. GDR Candidates 4.1. GDR Candidates
GDR is the new concept introduced by this draft. To become a GDR is the new concept introduced by this specification. To become a
candidate GDR, a router must have the same DR priority as the DR. candidate GDR, a router MUST support this specification and also have
For example, if there are 4 routers on the LAN: R1, R2, R3 and R4. the same DR priority as the DR. For example, assume there are 4
R1, R2 and R3 have the same DR priority while R4's DR priority is routers on the LAN: R1, R2, R3 and R4, which all support this
less preferred. In this example, only R1, R2 and R3 will be eligible specification. R1, R2 and R3 have the same DR priority while R4's DR
for GDR election. R4 is not because R4 will not become a PIM DR priority is less preferred. In this example, only R1, R2 and R3 will
unless all of R1, R2 and R3 go out of service. be eligible for GDR election. R4 is not because R4 will not become a
PIM DR unless all of R1, R2 and R3 go out of service.
Further assuming router R1 wins the PIM DR election. In its Hello Further assume router R1 wins the PIM DR election. In its Hello
packet, R1 will include the identity of R1, R2 and R3 (the GDR packet, R1 will include the identity of R1, R2 and R3 (the GDR
candidates) besides its own Load Balancing Hash Mask TLV. The order candidates) besides its own Load Balancing Hash Mask TLV. The order
of the GDR candidates is converted to the ordinal number associated of the GDR candidates is converted to the ordinal number associated
with each GDR candidate. For example, addresses advertised by R1 is with each GDR candidate. For example, addresses advertised by R1 is
R1, R2, R3, the ordinal number assigned to R1 is 0, to R2 is 1 and to R1, R2, R3, the ordinal number assigned to R1 is 0, to R2 is 1 and to
R3 is 2. R3 is 2.
4.2. Hash Mask 4.2. Hash Mask
A Hash Mask is used to extract a number of bits from the A Hash Mask is used to extract a number of bits from the
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 20
o hashvalue_Group = ((Group_address & Group_hashmask) >> N) % M o hashvalue_Group = ((Group_address & Group_hashmask) >> N) % M
For SSM groups, a hash value is calculated using both the source and For SSM groups, a hash value is calculated using both the source and
group Hash Mask group Hash Mask
o hashvalue_SG = (((Source_address & Source_hashmask) >> N_S) ^ o hashvalue_SG = (((Source_address & Source_hashmask) >> N_S) ^
((Group_address & Group_hashmask) >> N_G)) % M ((Group_address & Group_hashmask) >> N_G)) % M
4.3. PIM Hello Options 4.3. PIM Hello Options
When a non-DR PIM router that supports this draft sends a PIM Hello, When a non-DR PIM router that supports this specification sends a PIM
it includes a new option, called "Load Balancing Hash Masks TLV (LBM Hello, it includes a new option, called "Load Balancing Hash Masks
TLV)". The LBM TLV consists of three Hash Masks as defined above. TLV (LBM TLV)". The LBM TLV consists of three Hash Masks as defined
above.
Besides this new LBM TLV, the elected PIM DR router also includes a Besides this new LBM TLV, the elected PIM DR router also includes a
"Load Balancing GDR TLV (LBGDR TLV)" in its PIM Hello. The LBGDR TLV "Load Balancing GDR TLV (LBGDR TLV)" in its PIM Hello. The LBGDR TLV
consists of the sorted addresses of all GDR candidates on the last consists of the sorted addresses of all GDR candidates on the last
hop network. hop network.
The elected PIM DR router uses LBM TLV to calculate its LBGDR TLV. The elected PIM DR router uses LBM TLV to calculate its LBGDR TLV.
The GDR candidates use LBM TLV and LBGDR TLV advertised by DR PIM The GDR candidates use LBM TLV and LBGDR TLV advertised by DR PIM
router to calculate hash value. router to calculate hash value.
skipping to change at page 8, line 43 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (LBGDR) Hello TLV 5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (LBGDR) Hello TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Length | | Type = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GDR Address(es) | | GDR Address(es) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: GDR Hello TLV Figure 3: GDR Hello TLV
Type: TBD Type: TBD
Length: Length:
GDR Address (32/128 bits): Address(es) of GDR candidates. All GDR Address (32/128 bits): Address(es) of GDR candidates. All
addresses must be in the same address family. The addresses are addresses must be in the same address family. The addresses are
sorted from high to low. The order is used as the ordinal number, sorted from high to low. The order is used as the ordinal number,
starting from 0, in hash value calculation. starting from 0, in hash value calculation.
This LBGDR TLV should only be advertised by the elected PIM DR This LBGDR TLV SHOULD only be advertised by the elected PIM DR
router. router.
5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks (LBM) Hello TLV 5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks (LBM) Hello TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Length | | Type = TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Mask | | Group Mask |
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Hash Masks Hello TLV Figure 4: Hash Masks Hello TLV
Type: TBD. Type: TBD.
Length: Length:
Group Mask (32/128 bits): Mask Group Mask (32/128 bits): Mask
Source Mask (32/128 bits): Mask Source Mask (32/128 bits): Mask
RP Mask (32/128 bits): Mask RP Mask (32/128 bits): Mask
All masks must be in the same address family, with the same length. All masks MUST be in the same address family, with the same length.
This LBM TLV should be advertised by last hop routers, which support This LBM TLV SHOULD be advertised by last hop routers that support
this draft. this specification.
6. Protocol Specification 6. Protocol Specification
6.1. PIM DR Operation 6.1. PIM DR Operation
The DR elect process is still the same as defined in [RFC4601]. A DR The DR election process is still the same as defined in [RFC4601]. A
supports this draft advertises a new Hello Option LBGRD TLV to DR that supports this specification advertises a new Hello Option
includes all GDR candidates. Moreover, same as non-DR routers, DR LBGRD TLV to includes all GDR candidates. Moreover, same as non-DR
also advertises LBM TLV Hello Option to indicate its capability of routers, DR also advertises LBM TLV Hello Option to indicate its
supporting this draft. capability of supporting this specification.
LBGRD TLV is composed by sorting the addresses of all GDR candidates. LBGRD TLV is composed by sorting the addresses of all GDR candidates.
LBM TLV on PIM DR contains value of masks from user configuration. LBM TLV on PIM DR contains value of masks from user configuration.
If a PIM DR receives a neighbor Hello with LBGRD TLV, the PIM DR If a PIM DR receives a neighbor Hello with LBGRD TLV, the PIM DR
should ignore the TLV. SHOULD ignore the TLV.
If a PIM DR receives a neighbor Hello with LBM TLV, and the neighbor If a PIM DR receives a neighbor Hello with LBM TLV, and the neighbor
has the same DR priority as PIM DR itself, the PIM DR should consider has the same DR priority as PIM DR itself, the PIM DR SHOULD consider
the neighbor as a GDR candidate and insert the neighbor's address the neighbor as a GDR candidate and insert the neighbor's address
into the sorted list of LBGRD TLV. into the sorted list of LBGRD TLV.
6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation 6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation
When an IGMP join is received, without this proposal, router R1 (the When an IGMP join is received, without this proposal, router R1 (the
PIM DR) will handle the join and potentially run into the issues PIM DR) will handle the join and potentially run into the issues
described earlier. Using this proposal, a simple algorithm is used described earlier. Using this proposal, a simple algorithm is used
to determine which router is going to be responsible for building to determine which router is going to be responsible for building
forwarding trees on behalf of the host. forwarding trees on behalf of the host.
The algorithm works as follows, assuming the router in question is X The algorithm works as follows, assuming the router in question is X
and a GDR Candidate: and a GDR Candidate:
o If the group is ASM, and if the RP Hash Mask announced by the PIM o If the group is ASM, and if the RP Hash Mask announced by the PIM
DR is not 0.0.0.0, calculate the value of hashvalue_RP. If DR is not 0.0.0.0, calculate the value of hashvalue_RP. If
hashvalue_RP is the same as the ordinal number assigned implicitly hashvalue_RP is the same as the ordinal number assigned implicitly
to X by PIM DR, X becomes the GDR. to X by PIM DR, X becomes the GDR.
o If the group is ASM and if the RP Hash Mask announced by the PIM o If the group is ASM and if the RP Hash Mask announced by the PIM
DR is 0, obtain the value of hashvalue_Group. And compare that to DR is 0, obtain the value of hashvalue_Group. Then compare that
the ordinal value of X assigned by the PIM DR to decide if X is to the ordinal value of X assigned by the PIM DR to decide if X is
the GDR the GDR
o If the group is SSM, then use hashvalue_SG to determine if X is o If the group is SSM, then use hashvalue_SG to determine if X is
the GDR. the GDR.
If X is the GDR for the group, X will be responsible for building the If X is the GDR for the group, X will be responsible for building the
forwarding tree. forwarding tree.
A router that supports this draft advertises LBM TLV in its Hello, A router that supports this specification advertises LBM TLV in its
even the router may not be a GDR candidate. Hello, even if the router may not be a GDR candidate.
A GDR candidate may receive a LBM TLV from PIM DR router, with a A GDR candidate may receive a LBM TLV from PIM DR router, with
different Hash Masks as advertised in its own Hello LBM TLV. The GDR different Hash Masks from those advertised in its own Hello LBM TLV.
candidate must use the Hash Masks advertised by the PIM DR Hello to The GDR candidate must use the Hash Masks advertised by the PIM DR
calculate the hash value. Hello to calculate the hash value.
A GDR candidate may receive a LBGDR TLV from a non-DR PIM router. A GDR candidate may receive an LBGDR TLV from a non-DR PIM router.
The GDR candidate must ignore such LBGDR TLV. The GDR candidate must ignore such LBGDR TLV.
A GDR candidate may receive Hello from the elected PIM DR, and the A GDR candidate may receive a Hello from the elected PIM DR, and the
PIM DR doesn't support this draft. The GDR election described by PIM DR does not support this specification. The GDR election
this draft will not take place, that is only the PIM DR joins the described by this specification will not take place, that is only the
multicast tree. PIM DR joins the multicast tree.
6.3. PIM Assert Modification 6.3. PIM Assert Modification
When routers restart, GDR may change for a specific group, which When routers restart, GDR may change for a specific group, which
might cause packet drops. might cause packet drops.
For example, if there are two streams G1 and G2, and R1 is the GDR For example, assume that there are two streams G1 and G2, and R1 is
for G1 and R2 is the GDR for G2. When R3 comes up online, it is the GDR for G1 and R2 is the GDR for G2. When R3 comes up online, it
possible that R2 becomes GDR for G1 and R3 becomes GDR for G2, and is possible that R2 becomes GDR for G1 and R3 becomes GDR for G2, and
rebuilding of the forwarding trees for G1 and G2 will lead to rebuilding of the forwarding trees for G1 and G2 will lead to
potential packet loss. potential packet loss.
This is not a typical deployment scenario but it still might happen. This is not a typical deployment scenario but it still might happen.
Here we describe a mechanism to minimize the impact. Here we describe a mechanism to minimize the impact.
When the role of GDR changes as above, instead of immediately When the role of GDR changes as above, instead of immediately
stopping forwarding, R1 and R2 continue forwarding to G1 and G2 stopping forwarding, R1 and R2 continue forwarding to G1 and G2
respectively, while in the same time, R2 and R3 build forwarding respectively, while in the same time, R2 and R3 build forwarding
trees for G1 and G2 respectively. This will lead to PIM Asserts. trees for G1 and G2 respectively. This will lead to PIM Asserts.
The same tie breakers are used to select an Assert winner with one The same tie breakers are used to select an Assert winner with one
modification. That is, instead of comparing IP addresses as the last modification. That is, instead of comparing IP addresses as the last
resort, a router considers whether the sender of an Assert is a GDR. resort, a router considers whether the sender of an Assert is a GDR.
In this example, R1 will let R2 be the assert winner for G1, and R2 In this example, R1 will let R2 be the assert winner for G1, and R2
will do the same for R3 for G2. This will cause some duplicates in will do the same for R3 for G2. This will cause some duplicates in
the network while minimizing packet loss. the network while minimizing packet loss.
If a router on the LAN doesn't support this draft, the Assert If a router on the LAN does not support this specification, the
modification described above will not take place, that is only the IP Assert modification described above will not take place, that is only
address of an Assert sender is used as the tie breaker. Fore the IP address of an Assert sender is used as the tie breaker. For
example, if R4, with preferred IP address, doesn't understand GDR and example, if R4, with preferred IP address, does not understand GDR
sends Assert for G1, R2, the GDR for G1, will grant R4 as the Assert and sends Assert for G1 to R2, which is the GDR for G1, R2 will grant
winner, clear OIF on R2. R4 as the Assert winner, and clear OIF on R2.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
Two new PIM Hello Option Types are required to assign to the DR Load Two new PIM Hello Option Types are required to be bassigned to the DR
Balancing messages. According to [HELLO-OPT], this document Load Balancing messages. According to [HELLO-OPT], this document
recommends 32(0x20) as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing GDR Hello recommends 33(0x21) as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing GDR Hello
Option", and 33(0x21) as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks Option", and 34(0x22) as the new "PIM DR Load Balancing Hash Masks
Hello Option" . Hello Option" .
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Security of the PIM DR Load Balancing Hello message is only Security of the PIM DR Load Balancing Hello message is only
guaranteed by the security of PIM Hello packet, so the security guaranteed by the security of PIM Hello packet, so the security
considerations for PIM Hello packets as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601] considerations for PIM Hello packets as described in PIM-SM [RFC4601]
apply here. apply here.
9. Acknowledgement 9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Steve Simlo, Taki Millonis for The authors would like to thank Steve Simlo, Taki Millonis for
helping with the original idea, ??? for their review comments. helping with the original idea, Bill Atwood for review comments.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative Reference 10.1. Normative Reference
[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):
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 79 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/