Network Working Group                                       Tom                                        T. Pusateri
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Expires: August 21, 2005                                   February 2005 September 6, 2006                                 March 5, 2006

      PIM Sparse-Mode IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis
			draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-01.txt
                     draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of RFC 3668. BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

1.  Introduction
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This analysis Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides supporting documentation to advance the
   Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol
   from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. PIM Sparse-
   Mode was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as RFC
   2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of
   these documents.

Requirements Language

   The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification was then
   rewritten in whole key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in order to more fully specify the protocol.  It
   is this new specification that is
   document are to be advanced to Proposed
   Standard.

2. interpreted as described in RFC 1264 Requirements

   Section 4.0 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  RFC 1264 [ROUTESTD] describes the requirements for
   routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement
   is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has
   been satisfied.

2.1. Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1   Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage

   The authors of the new PIM Sparse-Mode specification have taken
   considerable care to fully specify the protocol operation. It removes
   all known ambiguities and tries to normalize corner cases that
   existed in the previous specification. It has been used to provide
   several interoperable implementations by developers that were not
   authors of the specification.  These implementations will be
   described below.

2.2.  Management Information Base

   A  . . . . .  3
     2.2   Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC
   2934 [PIMMIB].  This MIB has many implementations and has been used
   by network management applications for several years. Updates to this
   MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation
   experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF.

2.3.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.3   Explicit Security Architecture

   The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive
   security section explaining its security features and limitations.
   Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is
   provided for PIM protocol messages.

2.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.4   Implementation Existence

   There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new
   protocol specification and there are over 6 independent
   implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the
   specification. The new specification was carefully written to be
   backward compatible with the old specification allowing
   implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the
   new specification.

   The 4 implementations of the new version are described below:

   XORP
      The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       2.4.1   XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-
      SMv2 as specified in the draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt.  It was
      written by Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been
      available to the public since December 2002.  Pavlin is not an
      author of the protocol specification. It does not use any other
      existing code as a base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.4.2   Cisco IOS/IOX
      Cisco Systems, Inc. has written an implementation of the new
      protocol specification which has been deployed in production
      routers.  There exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There
      exists an IOX implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was
      initially written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does
      not depend on any existing code base.  Isidor is a co-author of
      the protocol specification.

   Infosys Technologies, Ltd.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.4.3   Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com) have developed a
      limited shared tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode
      specification including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM
      join/prune messages, join suppression, and prune override. It was
      written by Bharat Joshi <<bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in
      commercial products.  Bharat is not an author of the protocol
      specification.

   Procket Networks
      An implementation was written from scratch at . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.4.4   Procket Networks by
      Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned
      by Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol
      speicfication.

2.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.5   Evidence of Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.5.1   Cisco
      The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory
      testing as well as testing in production deployments. It is found
      to interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the
      PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification.

   XORP
      The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested
      internally by  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.5.2   XORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.5.3   Procket Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.6   Suitability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.7   Authentication Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  9

1.  Introduction

   This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the
   Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol
   from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard.  PIM Sparse-
   Mode was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again
   as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998.  The protocol was classified as
   Experimental in both of these documents.  The PIM Sparse-Mode
   protocol specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more
   fully specify the protocol.  It is this new specification that is to
   be advanced to Proposed Standard.

2.  RFC 1264 Requirements

   Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for
   routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard.  Each requirement
   is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has
   been satisfied.

2.1  Documents specifying the XORP project. Protocol and its Usage

   The emphasis during testing authors of the new PIM Sparse-Mode specification [I-D.ietf-pim-
   sm-v2-new] have taken considerable care to fully specify the protocol
   operation.  It removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize
   corner cases that existed in the previous specification.  It has been on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's
      behavior
   used to provide several interoperable implementations by developers
   that were not authors of the specification.  These implementations
   will be described below.

2.2  Management Information Base

   A Management Information Base for PIM is tested currently specified in RFC
   2934 [RFC2934].  This MIB has many implementations and has been used
   by connecting it network management applications for several years.  Updates to external packet generators
   this MIB to support IPv6 and observers. The packet generators other improvements based on operation
   experience are used to generate messages
      such as IGMP in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF.

2.3  Explicit Security Architecture

   The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive
   security section explaining its security features and PIM-SM control packets, limitations.
   Data integrity protection and multicast groupwise data
      packets.  The packet observers origin authentication is
   provided for PIM protocol messages.

2.4  Implementation Existence

   There are used at least 4 known independent implementations of the new
   protocol specification and there are over 6 independent
   implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the
   specification.  The new specification was carefully written to observe be
   backward compatible with the PIM-SM
      control packets generated by old specification allowing
   implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the
   new specification.

   The 4 implementations of the new version are described below:

2.4.1  XORP

   The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM router under test, and to
      observe
   v2 as specified in the data packets that may be forwarded draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt.  It was
   written by that router. In
      addition, the router's command-line interface Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been used available
   to
      observe its internal state during some of the tests.

      The test scenarios have been designed to closely follow public since December 2002.  Pavlin is not an author of the
   protocol specification (e.g., specification.  It does not use any other existing code as a separate test
   base.

2.4.2  Cisco IOS/IOX

   Cisco Systems, Inc. has been created for
      each event in written an implementation of the various new protocol state machines, etc). All test
      scenarios are described in detail
   specification which has been deployed in [XORP-Test].

      The major tested features are:

      1. Multicast data forwarding.

      2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery,
         option exchange, and DR election.

      3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register
         state machine, multicast data packets encapsulation and
         decapsulation.

      4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages, upstream
         and downstream protocol state machines. The tests consider the
         following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G) and (S,G,rpt).

      5. Transmission production routers.  There
   exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only.  There exists an IOX
   implementation for both IPv4 and reception IPv6.  This code was initially
   written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>.  It does not depend
   on any existing code base.  Isidor is a co-author of PIM Assert messages and the per-
         interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines.

      6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception and forwarding protocol
   specification.

2.4.3  Infosys Technologies, Ltd.

   Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com) have developed a limited
   shared tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification
   including PIM Bootstrap Hello messages, transmission and reception of DR election, PIM
         Cand-RP-Adv join/prune messages, candidate
   join suppression, and non-candidate BSR state
         machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving prune override.  It was written by Bharat Joshi
   <bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and using
         the RP-Set, semantic fragmentation of BSMs.

      In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified is used in commercial products.
   Bharat is not an author of the
      PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol
      specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of
      the Internet Draft.

2.4.4  Procket Networks
      The

   An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by
   Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>.  This implementation was deployed in many research
      and service provider networks and showed interoperability with is now owned by
   Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new
      and old protocol
   specification.

2.5  Evidence of Testing

2.5.1  Cisco Systems implementations

   The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing
   as well as Juniper Networks
      implementations.

2.6.  Suitability testing in production deployments.  It is found to
   interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM
   Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast
   groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets.  PIM
   uses specification.

2.5.2  XORP

   The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested
   internally by the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path
   information for multicast tree building but it is not dependent XORP project.  The emphasis during testing has been
   on
   any particular unicast routing protocol.

2.7.  Authentication Mechanisms

   PIM specifies the use of the IP security authentication header correctness.  In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is
   tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers.
   The packet generators are used to
   provide data integrity protection generate messages such as IGMP and groupwise
   PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data origin
   authentication of protocol messages. packets.  The specific AH authentication
   algorithm and parameters, including packet
   observers are used to observe the choice of authentication
   algorithm PIM-SM control packets generated by
   the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the choice of key, are configured data packets that
   may be forwarded by that router.  In addition, the network
   administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged PIM
   messages are outlined in the security considerations section router's command-
   line interface has been used to observe its internal state during
   some of the tests.

   The test scenarios have been designed to closely follow the protocol specification.

3.  Acknowledgments

   Pavlin Radoslavov provided text
   specification (e.g., a separate test has been created for each event
   in the section on XORP testing.
   Dino Farinacci provided text for various protocol state machines, etc).  All test scenarios are
   described in detail in the Procket Networks testing.

4.  Normative References

   [PIMMIB]    McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., Fenner, B.,
               "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934,
               October 2000.

5.  Informative References

   [ROUTESTD]  Hinden, R., "Internet Routing Protocol Standardization
               Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.

   [XORP]      XORP Project, http://www.xorp.org/

   [XORP-Test] XORP PIM-SM Test Suite,
               http://www.xorp.org/releases/current/docs/pim_test-
               suite/pim_testsuite.pdf

6.  Author's Address

   Tom Pusateri
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
   Phone:    (408) 745-2000
   EMail:    pusateri@juniper.net

7.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) Suite [XORP-TEST].

   The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses major tested features are:

   1.  Multicast data forwarding.

   2.  PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery,
       option exchange, and DR election.

   3.  PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register
       state machine, multicast data packets encapsulation and
       decapsulation.

   4.  Transmission and restrictions contained in BCP 78, reception of PIM Join/Prune messages, upstream
       and
   except as set forth therein, downstream protocol state machines.  The tests consider the authors retain all their rights.

8.  Disclaimer

   This document
       following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G) and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis (S,G,rpt).

   5.  Transmission and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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."
                             Table reception of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
   2. RFC 1264 Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.1. Documents specifying PIM Assert messages and the Protocol per-
       interface (*,G) and its Usage  . . . . . .   2
   2.2. Management Information Base  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.3. Explicit Security Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.4. Implementation Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.5. Evidence (S,G) Assert state machines.

   6.  PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception and forwarding
       of PIM Bootstrap messages, transmission and reception of Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.6. PIM
       Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate BSR state
       machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving and using the
       RP-Set, semantic fragmentation of BSMs.

   In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the
   PIM-SM protocol specification.  All issues found in the protocol
   specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the
   Internet Draft.

2.5.3  Procket Networks

   The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and
   service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and
   old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks
   implementations.

2.6  Suitability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.7.

   PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast
   groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets.  PIM
   uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path
   information for multicast tree building but it is not dependent on
   any particular unicast routing protocol.

2.7  Authentication Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

   PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication
   header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data
   origin authentication of protocol messages.  The specific AH
   authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of
   authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the
   network administrator.  The threats associated with receiving forged
   PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of
   the protocol specification.

3. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

4.  Security Considerations

   No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing
   protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol.

5.  Acknowledgments

   Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing.
   Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing.

6.  References

6.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.

   [I-D.ietf-pim-sm-v2-new]
              Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification  (Revised)",
              draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11 (work in progress),
              October 2004.

   [RFC2934]  McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B. Fenner,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934,
              October 2000.

6.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.

   [RFC1264]  Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
              Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
              October 1991.

   [RFC2117]  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 2117, June 1997.

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

   [RFC2362]  Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
              S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
              RFC 2362, June 1998.

   [XORP]     "XORP Project", <http://www.xorp.org>.

   [XORP-TEST]
              "XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", <http://www.xorp.org/releases/
              current/docs/pim_test-suite/pim_testsuite.pdf>.

Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7. Full

   Tom Pusateri
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 745 2000
   Email: pusateri@juniper.net

Intellectual Property Statement

   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.

Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.

Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  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.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.