Subject: [[email-masked]: Re: [pim] What's the definition of "quick turnaround"?]

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:27:01 -0700

Anyone see any objections with progressing this draft now? I'd like to hear
    from both the chairs and area directors before submitting the draft.

    I have again enclosed the spec after Thomas' email.

    I assume:

    1) We are passed last call (already have had 3 of them).
    2) There should be no objections by Bill. He indicated in the working group
       that this can be progressed if there were minor changes.
    3) The people who were vocal are now happy with the changes (Amit, Tom,
       and Thomas).

Thanks,
Dino

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------- Start of forwarded message -------
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,115,1122879600"; 
   d="scan'208"; a="106801641:sNHT14338676"
Subject: Re: [pim] What's the definition of "quick turnaround"?
From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
To: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: France Telecom R&D
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:41:47 +0200
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2005 07:41:44.0711 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D9CE970:01C5A2FF]
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075
X-from-outside-Cisco: 128.107.243.14

Hi Dino,

Dino Farinacci :
> >> >     I am afraid if we mention it, we are telling the reader that packet loss
> >> >     is intentionally designed in and we are condoning it. Sometimes it's 
> >> >     better not to say anything.
> >> 
> >> I think such imperfections should still be documented somewhere.
> 
>     Let me know what you think of of the enclosed text. I aded a new bullet
>     earlier in the procedure about when RP1 sends a Register-Stop as well as
>     an observation about state loss in the other RPs when Registers could
>     be lost.

I thinks that these new paragraphs makes the points we discussed clearer
now. Thank you.

>     Since Amit is happy with the text I sent yesterday (which is included
>     below) and if Thomas agrees to the text below, [...]

I do.

Cheers,

- -Thomas
------- End of forwarded message -------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network Working Group                                     Dino Farinacci
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 Yiqun Cai
Expiration Date: March 2006                                cisco Systems
                                                         August 16, 2005

                          Anycast-RP using PIM
                   <draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-04.txt>

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 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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

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

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

Abstract

   This specification allows Anycast-RP (Rendezvous Point) to be used
   inside a domain that runs Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) only.
   There are no other multicast protocols required to support Anycast-
   RP, such as MSDP, which has been used traditionally to solve this
   problem.

1.0 Introduction

   Anycast-RP as described in [I1] is a mechanism ISP-based backbones
   have used to get fast convergence when a PIM Rendezvous Point (RP)
   router fails. To allow receivers and sources to Rendezvous to the
   closest RP, the packets from a source need to get to all RPs to find
   joined receivers.

   This notion of receivers finding sources is the fundamental problem
   of source discovery which MSDP was intended to solve. However, if one
   would like to retain the Anycast-RP benefits from [I1] with less
   protocol machinery, removing MSDP from the solution space is an
   option.

   This memo extends the Register mechanism in PIM so Anycast-RP
   functionality can be retained without using MSDP.

1.1 Terminology

   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].

2.0 Requirements

   o An IP address is chosen to use as the RP address. This address is
     statically configured, or distributed using a dynamic protocol, to
     all PIM routers throughout the domain.

   o A set of routers in the domain are chosen to act as RPs for this
     RP address. These routers are called the Anycast-RP set.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set is configured with a loopback
     interface using the RP address.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set also needs a separate IP address,
     to be used for communication between the RPs.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

   o The RP address, or a prefix that covers the RP address, is injected
     into the unicast routing system inside of the domain.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set is configured with the addresses
     of all other routers in the Anycast-RP set. This must be
     consistently configured in all RPs in the set.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

3.0 Mechanism

   The following diagram illustrates a domain using 3 RPs where
   receivers are joining to the closest RP according to where unicast
   routing metrics take them and 2 sources sending packets to their
   respective RPs.

   The rules described in this section do not override the rules in
   [N1]. They are intended to blend with the rules in [N1]. If there is
   any question on the interpretation, precedent is given to [N1].

         S1-----RP1              RP2                RP3------S3
                / \               |
               /   \              |
              R1   R1'            R2

   Assume the above scenario is completely connected where R1, R1', and
   R2 are receivers for a group, and S1 and S3 send to that group.
   Assume RP1, RP2 and RP3 are all assigned the same IP address which is
   used as the Anycast-RP address (let's say the IP address is RPA).

   Note, the address used for the RP address in the domain (the
   Anycast-RP address) needs to be different than the addresses used by
   the Ancyast-RP routers to communicate with each other.

   The following procedure is used when S1 starts sourcing traffic:

   o S1 sends a multicast packet.

   o The DR directly attached to S1 will form a PIM Register
     message to send to the Anycast-RP address (RPA). The unicast
     routing system will deliver the PIM Register message to the
     nearest RP, in this case RP1.

   o RP1 will receive the PIM Register message, decapsulate it, send the
     packet down the shared-tree to get the packet to receivers R1 and
     R1'.

   o RP1 is configured with RP2 and RP3's IP address. Since the
     Register message did not come from one of the RPs in the
     anycast-RP set, RP1 assumes the packet came from a DR. If the
     Register is not addressed to the Anycast-RP address, an error
     has occurred and it should be rate-limited logged.

   o RP1 will then send  a copy of the Register message from S1's
     DR to both RP2 and RP3. RP1 will use its own IP address as
     the source address for the PIM Register message.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

   o RP1 MAY join back to the source-tree by triggering a (S1,G) Join
     message toward S1. However, RP1 MUST create (S1,G) state.

   o RP1 sends a Register-Stop back to the DR. If, for some reason,
     the Register messages to RP2 and RP3 are lost, then when the
     Register suppression timer expires in the DR, it will resend
     Registers to allow another chance for all RPs in the Anycast-RP
     set to obtain the (S,G) state.

   o RP2 receives the Register message from RP1, decapsulates it, and
     also sends the packet down the shared-tree to get the packet to
     receiver R2.

   o RP2 sends a Register-Stop back to the RP1. RP2 MAY wait to send the
     Register-Stop if it decides to join the source-tree. RP2 should wait
     until it has received data from the source on the source-tree before
     sending the Register-Stop. If RP2 decides to wait, the Register-Stop
     will be sent when the next Register is received. If RP2 decides not
     to wait, the Register-Stop is sent now.

   o RP2 MAY join back to the source-tree by triggering a (S1,G) Join
     message toward S1. However, RP2 MUST create (S1,G) state.

   o RP3 receives the Register message from RP1, decapsulates it, but
     since there are no receivers joined for the group, it can discard
     the packet.

   o RP3 sends a Register-Stop back to the RP1.

   o RP3 creates (S1,G) state so when a receiver joins after S1 starts
     sending, RP3 can join quickly to the source-tree for S1.

   o RP1 processes the Register-Stop from each of RP2 and RP3. There
     is no specific action taken when processing Register-Stop messages.

   The procedure for S3 sending follows the same as above but it is RP3
   which sends a copy of the Register originated by S3's DR to RP1 and
   RP2. Therefore, this example shows how sources anywhere in the
   domain, associated with different RPs, can reach all receivers, also
   associated with different RPs, in the same domain.

4.0 Observations and Guidelines about this Proposal

   o An RP will send a copy of a Register only if the Register is received
     from an IP address not in the Anycast-RP list (i.e. the Register
     came from a DR and not another RP). An implementation SHOULD safeguard
     against inconsistently configured anycast-RP sets in each RP by copying

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

     the TTL from a Register message to the Register messages it copies and
     sends to other RPs.

   o Each DR that PIM registers for a source will send the message to the
     anycast-RP address (which results in the packet getting to the closest
     physical RP). Therefore there are no changes to the DR logic.

   o Packets flow to all receivers no matter what RP they have joined to.

   o The source gets Registered to a single RP by the DR. It's the
     responsibility of the RP that receives the PIM Register
     messages from the DR (the closest RP to the DR based on routing
     metrics) to get the packet to all other RPs in the Anycast-RP
     set.

   o Logic is changed only in the RPs. The logic change is for
     sending copies of Register messages. Register-Stop processing is
     unchanged. However, an implementation MAY suppress sending
     Register-Stop messages in response to a Register received from
     an RP.

   o The rate-limiting of Register and Register-Stop messages are done
     end-to-end. That is from DR -> RP1 -> {RP2 and RP3}. There is no
     need for specific rate-limiting logic between the RPs.

   o When topology changes occur, the existing source-tree adjusts as it
     does today according to [N1]. The existing shared-trees, as well,
     adjust as it does today according to [N1].

   o Physical RP changes are as fast as unicast route convergence.
     Retaining the benefit of [I1].

   o An RP that doesn't support this specification can be mixed with
     RPs that do support this specification. However, the non-supporter
     RPs should not have sources registering to it but may have receivers
     joined to it.

   o If Null Registers are sent (Registers with an IP header and no IP
     payload), they MUST be replicated to all of the RPs in the Anycast-
     RP set so that source state remains alive for active sources.

   o The number of RPs in the Anycast-RP set should remain small so the
     amount of non-native replication is kept to a minimum.

   o Since the RP, who receives a Register from the DR, will send copies
     of the Register to the other RPs at the same time it sends a
     Register-Stop to the DR, there could be packet loss and lost state
     in the other RPs until the time the DR sends Register messages again.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

5.0 Interaction with MSDP running in an Anycast-PIM Router

   The objective of this Anycast-PIM proposal is to remove the
   dependence on using MSDP. This can be achieved by removing MSDP
   peering between the Anycast RPs. However, to advertise internal
   sources to routers outside of a PIM routing domain and to learn
   external sources from other routing domains, MSDP may still be
   required.

5.1 Anycast-PIM Stub Domain Functionality

   In this capacity, when there are internal sources that need to be
   advertised externally, an Anycast-RP which receives a Register
   message, either from a DR or an Anycast-RP, should process it as
   described in this specification as well as how to process a Register
   message as described in [N1]. That means an SA for the same internal
   source could be originated by multiple Anycast-RPs doing the MSDP
   peering. There is nothing inherently wrong with this other than the
   source is being advertised into the MSDP infrastructure from multiple
   places from the source domain. However, if this is not desirable,
   configuration of one or more (rather than all) Anycast-RP MSDP
   routers would allow only those routers to originate SAs for the
   internal source. And in some situations, there is a good possibility
   not all Anycast-RPs in the set will have MSDP peering sessions so
   this issue can be mitigated to a certain extent.

   From an Anycast-RP perspective, a source should be considered
   internal to a domain, when it is discovered by an Anycast-RP through
   a received Register message. Regardless, if the Register message was
   sent by a DR, another Anycast-RP member, or the router itself.

   For learning sources external to a domain, the MSDP SA messages could
   arrive at multiple MSDP-peering Anycast-RPs. The rules for processing
   an SA, according to [I1], should be followed. That is, if G is joined
   in the domain, an (S,G) join is sent towards the source. And if data
   accompanies the SA, each Anycast-PIM RP doing MSDP peering will
   forward the data down each of their respective shared-trees.

   The above assumes each Anycast-RP has external MSDP peering
   connections.  If this is not the case, the Anycast-PIM routers with
   the MSDP peering connections would follow the same procedure as if a
   Data-Register or Null-Register was received from either a DR or
   another Anycast-RP. That is, they would send Registers to the other
   members of the Anycast-RP set.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

   If there is a mix of Anycast-RPs that do and do not have external
   MSDP peering connections, then the ones that do must be configured
   with the set that do not. So Register messages are sent only to the
   members of the Anycast-RP set that do not have external MSDP peering
   connections.

   The amount of Register traffic generated by this MSDP-peering RP
   would be equal to the number of active sources external to the
   domain. The Source-Active state would have to be conveyed to all
   other RPs in the Anycast-RP set since the MSDP-peering RP would not
   know about the group membership associated with the other RPs. To
   avoid this periodic control traffic, it is recommended that all
   Anycast-RPs be configured with external MSDP peering sessions so no
   RP in the Anycast-RP set will have to originate Register messages on
   behalf of external sources.

5.2 Anycast-PIM Transit Domain Functionality

   Within a routing domain, it is recommended that an Anycast-RP set
   defined in this specification should not be mixed with MSDP peering
   among the members. In some cases, the source discovery will work but
   it may not be obvious to the implementations what sources are local
   to the domain and which are not. This may affect external MSDP
   advertisement of internal sources.

   Having said that, this draft makes no attempt to connect MSDP peering
   domains together by using Anycast-PIM inside a transit domain.

6.0 IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

7.0 Security Consideration

   This section describes the security consideration for Register and
   Register-Stop messages between Anycast-RPs.  For PIM messages between
   DR and RP, please see [I3].

7.1 Attack Based On Forged Messages

   An attacker may forge a Register message using one of the addresses
   in the Anycast-RP list in order to achieve one or more of the

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

   following effects:

      1. Overwhelm the target RP in a denial-of-service attack
      2. Inject unauthorized data to receivers served by the RP
      3. Inject unauthorized data and create bogus SA entries in other
         PIM domains if the target RP has external MSDP peerings

   An attacker may also forge a Register-Stop message using one of the
   addresses in the Anycast-RP list.  However, besides denial-of-
   service, the effect of such an attack is limited because an RP
   usually ignores Register-Stop messages.

7.2 Protect Register and Register-Stop Messages

   The DOS attack using forged Register or Register-Stop messages can
   not be prevented.  But the RP can still be protected.  For example,
   the RP can rate-limit incoming messages.  It can also choose to
   refuse to process any Register-Stop messages.  The actual protection
   mechansim is implementation specific.

   The distribution of unauthorized data and bogus SA entries can be
   prevented using the method recommended in [I3].  That is IPsec [I3]
   transport mode using the Authentication Header (AH).

   There are two options a network administrator can choose from.  An RP
   can be configured using a unique SA and SPI for traffic (Registers or
   Register-Stops) to each member of Anycast-RPs in the list.
   Alternatively, a single authentication algorithm and associated
   parameters can be used for the entire Anycast-RP set in order to
   reduce the overhead of key distribution.

Farinacci, Cai                                                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

8.0 Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Yiqun Cai and Dino Farinacci for
   prototyping this draft in the cisco IOS and Procket implementations,
   respectively.

   The authors would like to thank John Zwiebel for doing
   interoperability testing of the two prototype implementations.

   The authors would like to thank Thomas Morin from France Telecom for
   having an extensive discussion on Multicast the Registers to an SSM-
   based full mesh among the anycast-RP set. This idea may come in a
   subsequent Internet Draft.

   And finally, the authors would like to thank the following for their
   comments on earlier drafts:

      Greg Shepherd (Procket Networks (now cisco Systems))
      Lenny Giuliano (Juniper Networks)
      Prashant Jhingran (Huawei Technologies)
      Pekka Savola (CSC/FUNET)
      Bill Fenner (AT&T)
      James Lingard (Data Connection)
      Amit Shukla (Juniper Networks)
      Tom Pusateri (Juniper Networks)

9.0 Author Information

   Dino Farinacci
   cisco Systems
   [email-masked]

   Yiqun Cai
   cisco Systems
   [email-masked]

10.0 References

10.1 Normative References

   [N1] Fenner, Handley, Holbrook, Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent
        Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):Protocol Specification
        (Revised)", Internet Draft draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt,
        October 2004.

Farinacci, Cai                                                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

10.2 Informative References

   [I1] Kim, Meyer, Kilmer, Farinacci, "Anycast RP mechanism using PIM
        and MSDP", RFC 3446, January 2003.

   [I2] Estrin, et al., "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-
        SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.

   [I3] Kent, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401,
        November 1998.

Farinacci, Cai                                                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft            Anycast-RP using PIM           August 16, 2005

Appendix A - Possible Configuration Language

   A possible set of commands to be used could be:

       ip pim anycast-rp <anycast-rp-addr> <rp-addr>

   Where:

       <anycast-rp-addr> describes the Anycast-RP set for the RP which
       is assigned to the group range. This IP address is the address
       that first-hop and last-hop PIM routers use to register and join
       to.

       <rp-addr> describes the IP address where Register messages copies are
       sent to. This IP address is any address assigned to the RP router
       not including the <anycast-rp-addr>.

   Example:

       From the illustration above, the configuration commands would be:

       ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP1
       ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP2
       ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP3

   Comment:

       It may be useful to include the local router IP address in the
       command set so the above lines can be cut-and-pasted or scripted
       into all the RPs in the Anycast-RP set.

       But the implementation would have to be aware of its own address
       and not inadvertently send a Register to itself.

Farinacci, Cai                                                 [Page 12]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:56:15 -0700

I'm good. Make sure you follow the new ID rules or it will bounce back to you.

Tom