Versions: 02 03

PIM WG                                                   J. Asghar
Internet-Draft                                        IJ. Wijnands
Intended status: Informational                     S. Krishnaswamy
Expires: January 1, 2013 April 17, 2014                                   A. Karan
                                                     Cisco Systems
                                                           V. Arya
                                                     Directv, Inc.

                                                     July 12,

                                                  October 18, 2013

                     Explicit RPF Vector
            draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-02
            draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-03

Abstract

   This document defines a new Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Vector
   TLV to build multicast trees via an explicit path sent in the PIM
   join.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2013. April 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Solution Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Use of the Explicit RPF Vector  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Explicit RPF Vector Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Mixed Vector Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  Conflicting RPF Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   8.  PIM Asserts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   9.  Join Suppression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   10.  Vector Handling By Unsupported PIM Router . . . . . . . . . .  5
   11.  Explicit RPF Vector Attribute TLV Format   . . . . . . . . . . 5
   12.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   13.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   14.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   15.  Normative References   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.  Introduction

   For some applications, it might be useful to have a way to specify
   the explicit path along which the PIM join is propagated.

   This document defines a new TLV in the PIM Join Attribute message
   [RFC5384] for specifying the explicit path.

   The procedures in [RFC5496] define how a RPF vector can be used
   to influence the path selection in the absence of a route to the
   source. However, the same procedures can be used to override a
   route to the source when it exists. It is possible to include
   multiple RPF vectors in the list where each router along the
   path will perform a unicast route lookup on the first vector in
   the attribute list. Once the router owning the address of the RPF
   vector is reached, following the procedures in [RFC5496], the RPF
   vector will be removed from the attribute list. This will result
   in a 'loosely' routed path based on the unicast reachability of
   the RPF vector(s). We call this 'loosely' because we still depend
   on unicast routing reachability to the RPF Vector.

   In some scenarios we don't want to rely on the unicast reachability
   to the RPF vector address and we want to build a path strictly
   based on the RPF vectors. In that case the RPF vectors represent
   a list of directly connected PIM neighbors along the path. For
   these vectors we MUST NOT do a unicast route lookup. We call
   these 'explicit' RPF vector addresses. If a router receiving an
   Explicit RPF Vector does not have a PIM neighbor matching the
   Explicit RPF Vector address it MUST NOT fall back to loosely
   routing the join. Instead, it may process the packet and store
   the RPF Vector list so that the Explicit RPF Vector PIM join may be sent out as soon
   as the neighbor comes up. Since the behavior of the Explicit RPF
   Vector differs from the loose RPF vector as defined [RFC5496],
   we're defining a new attribute called the Explicit RPF Vector.

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.  Solution Requirements

   Some broadcast video transport networks use a multicast PIM
   Live-Live resiliency model for video delivery based on PIM SSM
   or PIM ASM. Live-Live implies using 2 active spatially diverse
   multicast trees to transport video flows from root to leaf
   multicast routers. The leaf multicast router receives 2 copies
   from the PIM multicast core and will replicate 1 copy towards
   the receivers [draft-mofrr-karan].

   One of the requirements of the PIM Live-Live resiliency model
   is to ensure path-diversity of the 2 active PIM trees in the
   core such that they do not intersect to avoid a single point
   of failure. IGP routed RPF paths of 2 PIM trees could be routed
   over the same transit router and create a single point of failure.
   It might be useful to have a way to specify the explicit path
   along which the PIM join is propagated.

   How the Explicit RPF Vector list is determined is outside the
   scope of this document. It may either be manually configured by
   the network operator or procedures may be implemented on the
   egress router to dynamically calculate the vector list based on
   a link state database protocol, like OSPF or IS-IS.

   Due to the fact that the leaf router receives two copies of the
   multicast stream via two diverse paths, there is no need for PIM
   to repair the broken path immediately. It is up to the egress
   router to either wait for the broken path to be repaired or build
   a new explicit path using a new RPF vector list. Which method is
   applied depends very much on how the vector list was determined
   initially. Double failures are not considered and are outside the
   scope of this document.

4.  Use of the PIM Explicit RPF Vector

   Figure 1 provides an example multicast join path
   R4->R3->R6->R5->R2->R1, where the multicast join is explicitly
   routed to the source hop-by-hop using the Explicit RPF Vector
   list.

   [S]---(R1)--(R2)---(R3)--(R4)---[R]
          <---   |      |  ---
             |   |      |  |
             | (R5)---(R6) |
             - (S,G) Join -

                Figure 1

5.  Explicit RPF Vector Attribute

   This draft uses PIM join attribute type 4 for specifying an Explicit
   RPF Vector.

6.  Mixed Vector Processing

   Explicit RPF Vector attribute does not impact or restrict the
   functionality of other RPF vector attributes in a PIM join. It is
   possible to mix vectors of different types, such that some part of
   the tree is explicit and other parts are loosely routed. RPF vectors
   are processed in the order in which they are specified. That is, the
   first RPF vector attribute is looked at and processed, it can be
   either loose or explicit.

7.  Conflicting RPF Vectors

   It is possible that a PIM router has multiple downstream neighbors.
   If for the same multicast route there is an inconsistency between the
   Explicit RPF Vector lists provided by the downstream PIM neighbor,
   the procedures as documented in section 3.3.3 [RFC5384] apply.

8.  PIM Asserts

   Section 3.3.3 of [RFC5496] specifies the procedures for how to deal
   with PIM asserts when RPF vectors are used. The same procedures apply
   to the Explicit RPF Vector. There is minor behavioral difference,
   the routing protocol's Metric route metric that is included in the PIM Assert should be taken from the
   route metric of the first Explicit RPF vector address in the list.
   However, the first Explicit vector should always be directly connected,
   so the Metric may likely be zero. The Metric will therefore not be a
   tie breaker in the PIM Assert selection procedure.

9.  Join Suppression

   Section 3.3.4 of [RFC5496] specifies the procedures how to apply join
   suppression when an RPF Vector attribute is included in the PIM join.
   The same procedure applies to the Explicit RPF Vector attribute. The
   procedure MUST match against all the Explicit RPF Vectors in the PIM
   join before a PIM join can be suppressed.

10.  Unsupported Explicit Vector Handling

   The F bit MUST be set to 0 by a downstream router in the join that
   is sent to the upstream router that does not support Explicit RPF
   vector. See section 3.3.2 of [RFC5384]. Routers that don't support
   the Explicit RPF Vector attribute MUST NOT forward the vector to
   their upstream PIM neighbor and if required send a PIM join with
   these attributes removed. Such This router will not be able to remove process
   the Explicit Vector attribute from the list,
   causing list and cause a PIM control
   plane routing loop with the upstream PIM neighbor. For that reason the F bit MUST be set to 0. See section
   3.3.2 of [RFC5384].

11.  Explicit RPF Vector Attribute TLV Format

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |F|E| Type      | Length        |        Value
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-.......

   F bit
   -----
   The F bit MUST be set to 0. Otherwise there could be loops.

   E bit
   -----
   End of Attributes. If this bit is set then this is the last TLV
   specified in the list.

   Type
   ----
   The Vector Attribute type is 4.

   Length
   ------
   Length depending on the Address Family of the Encoded-Unicast
   address.

   Value
   -----
   Encoded-Unicast address. This could be a valid primary or secondary
   address.

12.  IANA Considerations

   A new attribute type from the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry
   needs to be assigned by IANA for the Explicit RPF Vector attribute.
   The proposed value is 4.

13.  Security Considerations

   This document describes Explicit RPF Vector Attribute only which by
   itself does not modify the security of PIM join packet or PIM-SM
   operation and shares the security considerations described in
   [RFC4601].

14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Vatsa Kumar and Nagendra Kumar for
   the comments on the document.

15.  Normative References

   [RFC5496]  Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., Rosen, E., "The Reverse Path
              Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.

   [RFC5384]  Boers, A., Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., "The Protocol
              Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format",
              RFC 5384, Nov 2008.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August
              2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Javed Asghar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   725, Alder Drive
   Milpitas, CA 95035

   Email: jasghar@cisco.com

   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   EMail: ice@cisco.com

   Sowmya Krishnaswamy
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA 95134

   EMail: sowkrish@cisco.com

   Apoorva Karan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA 95134

   EMail: apoorva@cisco.com

   Vishal Arya
   DIRECTV Inc.
   2230 E Imperial Hwy
   El Segundo, CA  90245

   Email: varya@directv.com