draft-ietf-pim-drlb-04.txt   draft-ietf-pim-drlb-05.txt 
Network Working Group Yiqun Cai Network Working Group Yiqun Cai
Internet-Draft Microsoft Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track Sri Vallepalli Intended status: Standards Track Sri Vallepalli
Expires: December 13, 2014 Heidi Ou Expires: January 4, 2015 Heidi Ou
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Andy Green Andy Green
British Telecom British Telecom
June 11, 2014 July 3, 2014
PIM Designated Router Load Balancing PIM Designated Router Load Balancing
draft-ietf-pim-drlb-04.txt draft-ietf-pim-drlb-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
On a multi-access network, one of the PIM routers is elected as a On a multi-access network, one of the PIM routers is elected as a
Designated Router (DR). On the last hop network, the PIM DR is Designated Router (DR). 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 operating in PIM-SM. In traffic to these listeners if the group is operating in PIM-SM. In
this document, we propose a modification to the PIM-SM protocol that this document, we propose a modification to the PIM-SM protocol that
allows more than one of these last hop routers to be selected so that allows more than one of these last hop routers to be selected so that
the forwarding load can be distributed among these routers. the forwarding load can be distributed among these routers.
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 December 13, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
5. Hello Option Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Hello Option Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing Capability (DRLBC) Hello Option . . 9 5.1. PIM DR Load Balancing Capability (DRLBC) Hello Option . . 9
5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (DRLBGDR) Hello Option . . . . 10 5.2. PIM DR Load Balancing GDR (DRLBGDR) Hello Option . . . . 10
6. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. PIM DR Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. PIM DR Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. PIM GDR Candidate Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. PIM Assert Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. PIM Assert Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Terminology 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].
skipping to change at page 7, line 22 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
As a DR, R1 will include its own Load Balancing Hash Masks, and also As a DR, R1 will include its own Load Balancing Hash Masks, and also
the identity of R1 and R2 (the GDR Candidates) in its DRLBGDR Hello the identity of R1 and R2 (the GDR Candidates) in its DRLBGDR Hello
Option. Option.
4.2. Hash Mask and Hash Algorithm 4.2. Hash Mask and Hash Algorithm
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
corresponding IP address field (32 for v4, 128 for v6), and calculate corresponding IP address field (32 for v4, 128 for v6), and calculate
a hash value. A hash value is used to select a GDR from GDR a hash value. A hash value is used to select a GDR from GDR
Candidates advertised by PIM DR. For example, 0.255.0.0 defines a Candidates advertised by PIM DR. For example, 0.0.255.0 defines a
Hash Mask for an IPv4 address that masks the first, the third and the Hash Mask for an IPv4 address that masks the first, the second and
fourth octets. the fourth octets.
There are three Hash Masks defined, There are three Hash Masks defined,
o RP Hash Mask o RP Hash Mask
o Source Hash Mask o Source Hash Mask
o Group Hash Mask o Group Hash Mask
The Hash Masks MUST be configured on the PIM routers that can The Hash Masks MUST be configured on the PIM routers that can
skipping to change at page 14, line 30 skipping to change at page 14, line 30
considerations for PIM Hello messages as described in PIM-SM considerations for PIM Hello messages as described in PIM-SM
[RFC4601] apply here. [RFC4601] 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, Bill Atwood, Bharat Joshi for review helping with the original idea, Bill Atwood, Bharat Joshi for review
comments, Stig Venaas, Toerless Eckert and Rishabh Parekh for helpful comments, Stig Venaas, Toerless Eckert and Rishabh Parekh for helpful
conversation on the document. conversation on the document.
10. Normative Reference 10. References
10.1. 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, 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.
[RFC6395] Gulrajani, S. and S. Venaas, "An Interface Identifier (ID) [RFC6395] Gulrajani, S. and S. Venaas, "An Interface Identifier (ID)
Hello Option for PIM", RFC 6395, October 2011. Hello Option for PIM", RFC 6395, October 2011.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and L. S., "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and L. S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 6890, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 6890, February 2006.
10.2. Informative References
[HELLO-OPT] [HELLO-OPT]
IANA, , "PIM Hello Options", PIM-HELLO-OPTIONS per RFC4601 IANA, , "PIM Hello Options", PIM-HELLO-OPTIONS
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-hello-options, March http://www.iana.org/, March 2007.
2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Yiqun Cai Yiqun Cai
Microsoft Microsoft
La Avenida La Avenida
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
USA USA
Email: yiqunc@microsoft.com Email: yiqunc@microsoft.com
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 17 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/