draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-00.txt   draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt 
PIM Working Group B. Joshi PIM Working Group B. Joshi
Internet-Draft Infosys Technologies Ltd. Internet-Draft Infosys Technologies Ltd.
Expires: April 24, 2009 A. Kessler Expires: December 27, 2009 A. Kessler
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. McWalter D. McWalter
Data Connection Ltd Data Connection Ltd
October 21, 2008 June 25, 2009
PIM Group-to-RP Mapping PIM Group-to-RP Mapping
draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-00.txt draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
Each PIM-SM router in a PIM Domain which supports ASM maintains Each PIM-SM router in a PIM Domain which supports ASM maintains
Group-to-RP mappings which are used to identify a RP for a specific Group-to-RP mappings which are used to identify a RP for a specific
multicast group. PIM-SM has defined an algorithm to choose a RP from multicast group. PIM-SM has defined an algorithm to choose a RP from
the Group-to-RP mappings learned using various mechanisms. This the Group-to-RP mappings learned using various mechanisms. This
algorithm does not allow administrator to override a specific Group- algorithm does not allow administrator to override a specific Group-
to-RP mapping with the static Group-to-RP mapping which an to-RP mapping with the static Group-to-RP mapping which an
administrator would want to use. This algorithm also does not administrator would want to use. This algorithm also does not
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 15
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Existing algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Existing algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Common use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Common use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Proposed algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Proposed algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Deprecation of MIB Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Deprecation of MIB Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Clarification for MIB Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Clarification for MIB Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Migration to the new algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multiple mechanisms exist today to create and distribute Group-to-RP Multiple mechanisms exist today to create and distribute Group-to-RP
mappings. Each PIM-SM router may learn Group-to-RP mappings through mappings. Each PIM-SM router may learn Group-to-RP mappings through
various mechanisms. various mechanisms.
It is critical that each router select the same 'RP' for a specific It is critical that each router select the same 'RP' for a specific
multicast group address. This is even true in the case of Anycast RP multicast group address. This is even true in the case of Anycast RP
for redundancy. Routers should select the same RP address to use for for redundancy. Routers should select the same RP address to use for
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
group ranges for Dense mode or SSM. group ranges for Dense mode or SSM.
Also all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range Also all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range
table in the IP Mcast MIB would be copied over to table in the IP Mcast MIB would be copied over to
pimGroupMappingTable. They would have a type of configSSM and an RP pimGroupMappingTable. They would have a type of configSSM and an RP
with address type 'unknown' as described above. with address type 'unknown' as described above.
The advantage of keeping all the ranges in the table would be that The advantage of keeping all the ranges in the table would be that
this table will contain all the known multicast group ranges. this table will contain all the known multicast group ranges.
9. Security Consideration 9. Migration to the new algorithm
The Group-to-RP mapping algorithm proposed in this document obsoletes
the use of the hash function. With this change, there will be no
interoperability between the old and the new algorithm. So networks
that use multiple RP addresses for a Group Range and use the hash
function for load sharing will need to be migrated to the new
algorithm proposed in this document. A seamless migration to the new
Group-to-RP algorithm can be accomplished by using one RP address
with Anycast RP.
10. Security Consideration
This document does not suggest any protocol specific functionality so This document does not suggest any protocol specific functionality so
there is no security related consideration. there is no security related consideration.
10. IANA Consideration 11. IANA Consideration
This draft does not create any namespace for IANA to manage. This draft does not create any namespace for IANA to manage.
11. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
This draft is created based on the discussion occurred during the This draft is created based on the discussion occurred during the
PIM-STD-MIB [RFC5060] work. Many thanks to Stig Vennas and Toerless PIM-STD-MIB [RFC5060] work. Many thanks to Stig Vennas and Toerless
Eckert for providing useful comments during that discussion. Eckert for providing useful comments during that discussion.
12. Normative References 13. Normative References
[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.
[RFC5060] Sivaramu, R., Lingard, J., McWalter, D., Joshi, B., and A. [RFC5060] Sivaramu, R., Lingard, J., McWalter, D., Joshi, B., and A.
Kessler, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB", RFC 5060, Kessler, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB", RFC 5060,
January 2008. January 2008.
[RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous [RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous
skipping to change at page 19, line 4 skipping to change at line 400
Email: kessler@cisco.com Email: kessler@cisco.com
URI: http://www.cisco.com/ URI: http://www.cisco.com/
David McWalter David McWalter
Data Connection Ltd Data Connection Ltd
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ Enfield EN2 6BQ
UK UK
Email: dmcw@dataconnection.com Email: dmcw@dataconnection.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 38 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/