draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-02.txt   rfc4602.txt 
Network Working Group T. Pusateri
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Expires: September 6, 2006 March 5, 2006
PIM Sparse-Mode IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis
draft-ietf-pim-proposed-req-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any Network Working Group T. Pusateri
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware Request for Comments: 4602 Juniper Networks
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes Category: Informational August 2006
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2006. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the This document provides supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing
from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. protocol from IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. RFC 1264 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RFC 1264 Requirements ...........................................2
2.1 Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage . . . . . 3 2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage ............2
2.2 Management Information Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Management Information Base ................................2
2.3 Explicit Security Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Explicit Security Architecture .............................2
2.4 Implementation Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. Implementation Existence ...................................3
2.4.1 XORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4.1. XORP ................................................3
2.4.2 Cisco IOS/IOX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX .......................................3
2.4.3 Infosys Technologies, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. ..........................3
2.4.4 Procket Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4.4. Procket Networks ....................................3
2.5 Evidence of Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5. Evidence of Testing ........................................4
2.5.1 Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5.1. Cisco ...............................................4
2.5.2 XORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5.2. XORP ................................................4
2.5.3 Procket Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5.3. Procket Networks ....................................5
2.6 Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.6. Suitability ................................................5
2.7 Authentication Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.7. Authentication Mechanisms ..................................5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations .........................................5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Acknowledgements ................................................5
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References ......................................................6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Normative References .......................................6
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Informative References .....................................6
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse-Mode routing protocol Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing
from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. PIM Sparse- protocol from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard.
Mode was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then
as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as again as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as
Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM Sparse-Mode Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol
protocol specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more fully
fully specify the protocol. It is this new specification that is to specify the protocol. It is this new specification that is to be
be advanced to Proposed Standard. advanced to Proposed Standard.
2. RFC 1264 Requirements 2. RFC 1264 Requirements
Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for
routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement
is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has
been satisfied. been satisfied.
2.1 Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage 2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage
The authors of the new PIM Sparse-Mode specification [I-D.ietf-pim- The authors of the new PIM-SM specification [RFC4601] have taken
sm-v2-new] have taken considerable care to fully specify the protocol considerable care to fully specify the protocol operation. It
operation. It removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize corner cases
corner cases that existed in the previous specification. It has been that existed in the previous specification. It has been used to
used to provide several interoperable implementations by developers provide several interoperable implementations by developers that were
that were not authors of the specification. These implementations not authors of the specification. These implementations will be
will be described below. described below.
2.2 Management Information Base 2.2. Management Information Base
A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC
2934 [RFC2934]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used 2934 [RFC2934]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used
by network management applications for several years. Updates to by network management applications for several years. Updates to
this MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation this MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation
experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF. experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF.
2.3 Explicit Security Architecture 2.3. Explicit Security Architecture
The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive
security section explaining its security features and limitations. security section explaining its security features and limitations.
Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is
provided for PIM protocol messages. provided for PIM protocol messages.
2.4 Implementation Existence 2.4. Implementation Existence
There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new
protocol specification and there are over 6 independent protocol specification, and there are over 6 independent
implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the
specification. The new specification was carefully written to be specification. The new specification was carefully written to be
backward compatible with the old specification allowing backward compatible with the old specification allowing
implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the
new specification. new specification.
The 4 implementations of the new version are described below: The 4 implementations of the new version are described below.
2.4.1 XORP 2.4.1. XORP
The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM
v2 as specified in the draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt. It was v2 as specified in RFC 4601. It was written by Pavlin Radoslavov
written by Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been available <pavlin@icir.org> and has been available to the public since December
to the public since December 2002. Pavlin is not an author of the 2002. Pavlin is not an author of the protocol specification. It
protocol specification. It does not use any other existing code as a does not use any other existing code as a base.
base.
2.4.2 Cisco IOS/IOX 2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX
Cisco Systems, Inc. has written an implementation of the new protocol Cisco Systems, Inc., has written an implementation of the new
specification which has been deployed in production routers. There protocol specification that has been deployed in production routers.
exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There exists an IOX There exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There exists an
implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was initially IOX implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was initially
written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does not depend written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does not depend
on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of the protocol on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of the protocol
specification. specification.
2.4.3 Infosys Technologies, Ltd. 2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd.
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com) have developed a limited Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com), has developed a limited
shared tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification shared-tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification
including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM join/prune messages, including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM join/prune messages,
join suppression, and prune override. It was written by Bharat Joshi join suppression, and prune override. It was written by Bharat Joshi
<bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in commercial products. <bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in commercial products.
Bharat is not an author of the protocol specification. Bharat is not an author of the protocol specification.
2.4.4 Procket Networks 2.4.4. Procket Networks
An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by
Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned by Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned by
Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol
specification. specification.
2.5 Evidence of Testing 2.5. Evidence of Testing
2.5.1 Cisco 2.5.1. Cisco
The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing
as well as testing in production deployments. It is found to as well as testing in production deployments. It is found to
interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM
Sparse-Mode protocol specification. Sparse-Mode protocol specification.
2.5.2 XORP 2.5.2. XORP
The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested
internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has been internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has been
on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is
tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers. tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers.
The packet generators are used to generate messages such as IGMP and The packet generators are used to generate messages such as IGMP and
PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data packets. The packet PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data packets. The packet
observers are used to observe the PIM-SM control packets generated by observers are used to observe the PIM-SM control packets generated by
the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the data packets that the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the data packets that
may be forwarded by that router. In addition, the router's command- may be forwarded by that router. In addition, the router's command-
line interface has been used to observe its internal state during line interface has been used to observe its internal state during
some of the tests. some of the tests.
The test scenarios have been designed to closely follow the protocol The test scenarios have been designed to follow the protocol
specification (e.g., a separate test has been created for each event specification closely (e.g., a separate test has been created for
in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test scenarios are each event in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test
described in detail in the XORP PIM-SM Test Suite [XORP-TEST]. scenarios are described in detail in the XORP PIM-SM Test Suite
[XORP-TEST].
The major tested features are: The major tested features are:
1. Multicast data forwarding. 1. Multicast data forwarding.
2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery, 2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery,
option exchange, and DR election. option exchange, and DR election.
3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register 3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register
state machine, multicast data packets encapsulation and state machine, and multicast data packets encapsulation and
decapsulation. decapsulation.
4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages, upstream 4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages and
and downstream protocol state machines. The tests consider the upstream and downstream protocol state machines. The tests
following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G) and (S,G,rpt). consider the following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G), and
(S,G,rpt).
5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per- 5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per-
interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines. interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines.
6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception and forwarding 6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception, and forwarding
of PIM Bootstrap messages, transmission and reception of PIM of PIM Bootstrap messages (BSMs), transmission and reception of
Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate BSR state PIM Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate Bootstrap
machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving and using the Router (BSR) state machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR,
RP-Set, semantic fragmentation of BSMs. receiving and using the RP-Set, and semantic fragmentation of
BSMs.
In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the
PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol
specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the
Internet Draft. document.
2.5.3 Procket Networks 2.5.3. Procket Networks
The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and
service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and
old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks
implementations. implementations.
2.6 Suitability 2.6. Suitability
PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast
groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM
uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path
information for multicast tree building but it is not dependent on information for multicast tree building, but it is not dependent on
any particular unicast routing protocol. any particular unicast routing protocol.
2.7 Authentication Mechanisms 2.7. Authentication Mechanisms
PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication
header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data
origin authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH origin authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH
authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of
authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the
network administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged network administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged
PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of
the protocol specification. the protocol specification.
3. IANA Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
4. Security Considerations
No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing
protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol. protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol.
5. Acknowledgments 4. Acknowledgements
Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing. Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing.
Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing. Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing.
6. References 5. References
6.1 Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-sm-v2-new] 5.1. Normative References
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, [RFC2934] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B. Fenner,
"Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934,
October 2000. October 2000.
6.2 Informative References [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
October 1991. October 1991.
[RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D.,
S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma,
Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse
Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997. 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, [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D.,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma,
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse
RFC 2362, June 1998. Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June
1998.
[XORP] "XORP Project", <http://www.xorp.org>. [XORP] "XORP Project", <http://www.xorp.org>.
[XORP-TEST] [XORP-TEST] "XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", <http://www.xorp.org/releases/
"XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", <http://www.xorp.org/releases/ current/docs/pim_testsuite/pim_testsuite.pdf>.
current/docs/pim_test-suite/pim_testsuite.pdf>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Tom Pusateri Tom Pusateri
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Avenue 1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 745 2000 Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: pusateri@juniper.net EMail: pusateri@juniper.net
Intellectual Property Statement Full Copyright Statement
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.
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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity Acknowledgement
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
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 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Internet Society. Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
165 lines changed or deleted 131 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/