💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc2337.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 20:08:08.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Request for Comments: 2337 Cisco Systems
Category: Experimental D. Meyer
Cisco Systems
Y. Rekhter
Cisco Systems
April 1998
Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode PIM
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
2. Abstract
This document describes how intra-LIS IP multicast can be efficiently
supported among routers over ATM without using the Multicast Address
Resolution Server (MARS). The method described here is specific to
Sparse Mode PIM [PIM-SM], and relies on the explicit join mechanism
inherent in PIM-SM to notify routers when they should create group
specific point-to-multipoint VCs.
3. Overall model
This document focuses on forwarding of multicast traffic among PIM-SM
routers connected to an ATM network. Routers on an ATM network are
partitioned into Logical IP Subnets, or LISs. This document deals
with handling multicast within a single LIS. Handling inter-LIS
multicast traffic, including handling shortcuts, is outside the scope
of this document. In addition, this document does not address
forwarding of multicast traffic to or from hosts connected to an ATM
network.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
4. Router behavior
This document requires that each router within a LIS knows IP and ATM
addresses of all other routers within the LIS. The mapping between IP
and ATM addresses may be provided by an ARP server [RFC2225], or by
any other means (e.g., static configuration).
Each PIM router within a LIS is required to maintain a single
(shared) point-to-multipoint distribution VC rooted at the router
with all other PIM routers in the LIS as the leaf nodes. The VC is
expected to be used for forwarding of multicast traffic (both data
and control) among routers within the LIS. For example, this VC would
be used for distributing PIM [PIM-SM] control messages (Join/Prune
messages).
In addition, if a PIM router receives a IGMP report from an non-PIM
neighbor, then the router may add the reporter to the existing shared
distribution VC or to the group specific distribution VC (if it
exists). The PIM router may also create a specific VC for this IGMP
proxy.
4.1. Establishing Dedicated, Per Group Point-to-Multipoint VCs
Routers may also maintain group specific, dedicated point-to-
multipoint VCs. In particular, an upstream router for a group may
choose to become the root of a group specific point-to-multipoint VC
whose leaves are the downstream routers that have directly connected
or downstream receivers for the group. While the criteria for
establishing a group specific point-to-multipoint VC are local to a
router, issues such as the volume of traffic associated with the
group and the fanout factor within the LIS should be considered.
Finally, note that a router must minimally support a single shared
point-to-multipoint VC for distribution of control messages and data
(to all group addresses).
A router can choose to establish a dedicated point-to-multipoint VC
(or add another leaf to an already established dedicated point-to-
multipoint VC) when it receives a PIM Join or IGMP report messages
from another device in the same LIS. When a router that is the root
of a point-to-multipoint VC receives PIM Prune message or IGMP leave,
it removes the originator of the message from its dedicated point-
to-multipoint VC.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
4.2. Switching to a Source-Rooted Tree
If at least one of the routers within a LIS decides to switch to a
source-rooted tree (by sending (S,G) PIM Joins), then all other
routers within the LIS that have downstream members for G should
switch to that source-rooted tree as well. Since a router that
switches to a source-rooted tree sends PIM Join messages for (S,G)
over its shared point-to-multipoint VC, the other routers within the
LIS are able to detect this. Once a router that has downstream
members for G detects this, the router should send (S,G) PIM Join
message as well (otherwise the router may receive duplicate traffic
from S).
Note that it is possible for a non-PIM router in the LIS to fail to
receive data if the injection point moves to router to which there is
not an existing VC.
4.2.1. Adding New Members to a Source-Rooted Tree
As mentioned above, this document requires that once one router in a
LIS decides to switch to the source tree for some (S,G), all routers
in the LIS that have downstream members must also switch to the (S,G)
source tree. Now, when a new router wants to receive traffic from G,
it starts sending (*,G)-Joins on it's shared point-to-multipoint VC
toward the RP for G. The root of the (S,G)-source-rooted tree will
know to add the new router to the point-to-multipoint VC servicing
the (S,G)-source-rooted tree by observing the (*,G)-joins on it's
shared point-to-multipoint VC. However, the new router must also
switch to the (S,G)-source-rooted tree. In order to accomplish this,
the newly added router must:
(i). Notice that it has been added to a new
point-to-multipoint VC
(ii). Notice (S,G) traffic coming down this new
point-to-multipoint VC
(iii). Send (S,G) joins toward S, causing it to switch to the
source-rooted tree. The router learns that the VC is used
to distribute (S,G) traffic in the previous steps.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
4.3. Handing the "Packet Reflection" Problem
When a router receives a multicast packet from another router in its
own LIS, the router should not send the packet on any of the routers
distribution point-to-multipoint VCs associate with the LIS. This
eliminates the problem of "packet reflection". Sending the packet on
the routers' distribution VCs associated with other LISs is
controlled by the multicast routing procedures.
5. Brief Comparison with MARS
The intra-LIS multicast scheme described in this document is intended
to be a less complex solution to an important subset of the
functionality provided by the Multicast Address Resolution Server, or
MARS [MARS]. In particular, it is designed to provide intra-LIS
multicast between routers using PIM-SM, and does not consider the
case of host-rooted point-to-multicast multicast distribution VCs.
Although MARS supports both of the current schemes for mapping the IP
multicast service model to ATM (multicast server and meshes of
point-to-multipoint VCs), it does so at at cost and complexity higher
than of the scheme described in this document. In addition, MARS
requires new encapsulations, whereas this proposal works with either
LLC/SNAP or with NLPID encapsulation. Another important difference is
that MARS allows point-to-multipoint VCs rooted either at a source or
at a multicast server (MCS). The approach taken here is to constrain
complexity by focusing on PIM-SM (taking advantage of information
available in explicit joins), and by allowing point-to-multipoint VCs
to be rooted only at the routers (which is roughly analogous to the
complexity and functionality of rooting point-to-multipoint VCs at
the sources).
In summary, the method described in this document is designed for the
router-to-router case, and takes advantage of the explicit-join
mechanism inherent in PIM-SM to provide a simple mechanism for
intra-LIS multicast between routers. MARS, on the other hand, accepts
different tradeoffs in complexity-functionality design space. In
particular, while the MARS paradigm provides a general neighbor
discovery mechanism, allows host to participate, and is protocol
independent, it does so at considerable cost.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
6. Security Considerations
In general, the security issues relevant to the proposal outlined in
the memo are subsumed by those faced by PIM-SM. While work in
proceeding on security for PIM-SM, it is worthwhile noting that
several issues have been raised in conjunction with multicast routing
and with PIM-SM in particular. These issues include but are not
limited to:
(i). Unauthorized Senders
(ii). Unauthorized Receivers
(iii). Unauthorized use of the RP
(iv). Unauthorized "last hop" switching to shortest path
tree.
6.1. General Comments on Multicast Routing Protocol Security
Historically, routing protocols used within the Internet have lacked
strong authentication mechanisms [RFC1704]. In the late 1980s,
analysis revealed that there were a number of security problems in
Internet routing protocols then in use [BELLOVIN89]. During the
early 1990s it became clear that adversaries were selectively
attacking various intra-domain and inter-domain routing protocols
(e.g. via TCP session stealing of BGP sessions) [CERTCA9501,
RFC1636]. More recently, cryptographic authentication mechanisms have
been developed for RIPv2, OSPF, and the proprietary EIGRP routing
protocols. BGP protection, in the form of a Keyed MD5 option for
TCP, has also become widely deployed.
At present, most multicast routing protocols lack strong
cryptographic protection. One possible approach to this is to
incorporate a strong cryptographic protection mechanism (e.g. Keyed
HMAC MD5 [RFC2104]) within the routing protocol itself. Alternately,
the routing protocol could be designed and specified to use the IP
Authentication Header (AH) [RFC1825, RFC1826, RFC2085] to provide
cryptographic authentication.
Because the intent of any routing protocol is to propagate routing
information to other parties, confidentiality is not generally
required in routing protocols. In those few cases where local
security policy might require confidentiality, the use of the IP
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC1825, RFC1827] is
recommended.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
Scalable dynamic multicast key management is an active research area
at this time. Candidate technologies for scalable dynamic multicast
key management include CBT-based key management [RFC1949] and the
Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) [RFC2093,RFC2094]. The IETF IP
Security Working Group is actively working on GKMP extensions to the
standards-track ISAKMP key management protocol being developed in the
same working group.
7. References
[BELLOVIN89] S. Bellovin, "Security Problems in the TCP/IP
Protocol Suite", ACM Computer Communications Review,
Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 32-48, April 1989.
[CERTCA9501] CERT, "IP Spoofing Attacks and Hijacked Terminal
Connections", ftp://ftp.cert.org/cert_advisories/,
January 1995.
[MARS] Armitage, G., "Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1
based ATM Networks.", RFC 2022, November 1996.
[PIM-SM] Estrin, D, et. al., "Protocol Independent Multicast
Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", Work in
Progress.
[RFC1636] Braden, R., Clark, D., Crocker, S., and C. Huitema,
"Report of IAB Workshop on Security in the Internet
Architecture February 8-10, 1994", RFC 1636, June 1994.
[RFC1704] Haller, N., and R. Atkinson, "On Internet
Authentication", RFC 1704, October 1994.
[RFC1825] Atkinson, R., "IP Security Architecture", RFC 1825,
August 1995.
[RFC1826] Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 1826,
August 1995.
[RFC1827] Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload",
RFC 1827, August 1995.
[RFC1949] Ballardie, A., "Scalable Multicast Key Distribution",
RFC1949, June 1996.
[RFC2085] Oehler, M., and R. Glenn, "HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication
with Replay Prevention", RFC 2085, February 1997.
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
[RFC2093] Harney, H., and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management
Protocol (GKMP) Specification", RFC 2093, July 1997.
[RFC2094] Harney, H., and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management
Protocol (GKMP) Architecture", RFC 2094, July 1997.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[RFC2225] Laubach, M., and J. Halpern, "Classical IP and ARP over
ATM", RFC 2225, April 1998.
8. Acknowledgments
Petri Helenius provided several insightful comments on earlier
versions of this document.
9. Author Information
Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 526-4696
EMail: dino@cisco.com
David Meyer
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (541) 687-2581
EMail: dmm@cisco.com
Yakov Rekhter
cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (914) 528-0090
EMail: yakov@cisco.com
Farinacci, et. al. Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 2337 IP multicast over ATM using PIM April 1998
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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, et. al. Experimental [Page 8]