| < draft-dizhou-pim-umf-problem-statement-00.txt | draft-dizhou-pim-umf-problem-statement-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Engineering Task Force D. Zhou, Ed. | Internet Engineering Task Force D. Zhou, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft Hangzhou H3C Tech. Co., Ltd. | Internet-Draft Hangzhou H3C Tech. Co., Ltd. | |||
| Intended status: Informational H. Deng | Intended status: Informational H. Deng | |||
| Expires: January 2, 2011 China Mobile Research Institute | Expires: April 22, 2011 China Mobile Research Institute | |||
| Y. Shi | Y. Shi | |||
| Hangzhou H3C Tech. Co., Ltd. | Hangzhou H3C Tech. Co., Ltd. | |||
| H. Liu | H. Liu | |||
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | |||
| 17 August 2010 | I. Bhattacharya | |||
| Cisco Systems | ||||
| October 19, 2010 | ||||
| Unnecessary Multicast Flooding Problem Statement | Unnecessary Multicast Flooding Problem Statement | |||
| draft-dizhou-pim-umf-problem-statement-00 | draft-dizhou-pim-umf-problem-statement-01 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes the unnecessary multicast stream flooding | This document describes the unnecessary multicast stream flooding | |||
| problem in the link layer switches between multicast source and PIM | problem in the link layer switches between multicast source and PIM | |||
| First Hop Router (FHR). The IGMP-Snooping Switch will forward | First Hop Router (FHR). The IGMP-Snooping Switch will forward | |||
| multicast streams to router ports, and the PIM FHR must receive all | multicast streams to router ports, and the PIM FHR must receive all | |||
| multicast streams even if there is no request from receiver. This | multicast streams even if there is no request from receiver. This | |||
| often leads to waste of switchs' cache and link bandwidth when the | often leads to waste of switchs' cache and link bandwidth when the | |||
| multicast streams are not actually required. This document details | multicast streams are not actually required. This document details | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| 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." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2011. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2011. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 47 ¶ | |||
| For the second problem of PIM FHR host simulation, the switch | For the second problem of PIM FHR host simulation, the switch | |||
| directly connected to source can simulate IGMP Querier. | directly connected to source can simulate IGMP Querier. | |||
| But when there are two or more switches simulating IGMP Queriers, the | But when there are two or more switches simulating IGMP Queriers, the | |||
| phenomenon of unnecessary multicast streams flooding still exists. | phenomenon of unnecessary multicast streams flooding still exists. | |||
| 5.4. Replacing link layer switches with Routers | 5.4. Replacing link layer switches with Routers | |||
| Replacing link layer switches directly connected to sources with | Replacing link layer switches directly connected to sources with | |||
| Routers is not a perfect solution either. Note that this solution | Routers is not a perfect solution either. It will limit the | |||
| will lead to waste of ip address seriously if there are many sources. | flexibility of networking, and will further lead to waste of ip | |||
| It will also bring about so many ip address segments and then | address and many ip address segments seriously if there are many | |||
| complicated network management. After all, this solution will put | sources. It will also bring about many ip address segments and then | |||
| some multicast sources and receivers in some different ip address | complicate network management. | |||
| segment. | ||||
| 6. some potential solutions | 6. some potential solutions | |||
| 6.1. solution based on PIM and PIM-Snooping | 6.1. solution based on PIM and PIM-Snooping | |||
| The key points of it are as follows: | The key points of it are as follows: | |||
| o When the PIM FHR receives a multicast stream, it creates an entry | o When the PIM FHR receives a multicast stream, it creates an entry | |||
| of (S,G) if the entry did not exist. And it judges whether the | of (S,G) if the entry did not exist. And it judges whether the | |||
| (S,G) entry has out interfaces. If the (S,G) has no out | (S,G) entry has out interfaces. If the (S,G) has no out | |||
| interface, the PIM router sends out an unicast PIM prune message | interface, the PIM router sends out an unicast PIM prune message | |||
| towards multicast source. The upstream neighbor address in the | towards the multicast source. The upstream neighbor address in | |||
| message is the source address. | the message is the source address. | |||
| o The switch between multicast sources and PIM FHR runs PIM snooping | o The switch between multicast sources and PIM FHR runs PIM snooping | |||
| and IGMP snooping. When it intercepts the unicast PIM prune | and IGMP snooping. When it intercepts the unicast PIM prune | |||
| message by ip protocol field identification and finds out that the | message by ip protocol field identification and finds out that the | |||
| upstream neighbor address of the message is not in its PIM | upstream neighbor address of the message is not in its PIM | |||
| neighbor lists, it creates a (S,G) entry with a pruned port and an | neighbor lists, it creates a (S,G) entry with a pruned port and an | |||
| upstream port. The upstream port is found by looking up the | upstream port if not created before. The upstream port is found | |||
| unicast mac table. That (S,G) entry is punched with a specific | by looking up the unicast mac table. That (S,G) entry is punched | |||
| sign which means that entry is different from traditional PIM- | with a specific sign which means that entry is different from | |||
| Snooping entry. The pruned port has a lifetime which is 1/3 of | traditional PIM-Snooping entry. The pruned port SHALL NOT forward | |||
| the lifetime of PIM FHR's (S,G) entry, so that the multicast | multicast stream and has a lifetime which is 1/3 of that of PIM | |||
| stream will arrive at PIM FHR before its (S,G) entry dies out. | FHR's (S,G) entry, then converted to be a downstream port, so that | |||
| the multicast stream will arrive at PIM FHR to refresh the (S,G) | ||||
| entry. | ||||
| o By the information from IGMP-snooping entry and PIM-snooping | o Looking up IGMP-snooping entry and PIM-snooping entry, if the | |||
| entry, the switch can decide whether it shall forward the unicast | switch find there is no need to forward the multicast stream, it | |||
| PIM prune message towards multicast source. | SHALL forward the unicast PIM prune message towards multicast | |||
| source. | ||||
| o When the switch receives an IGMP membership report, it shall | o When the switch receives an IGMP membership report, it shall | |||
| forward the message through its router ports and upstream port. | forward the message through its router ports and upstream port. | |||
| o When PIM FHR creates an out interface for a (S,G) entry that had | o When PIM FHR creates an out interface for a (S,G) entry that had | |||
| no out interface before, it shall send unicast PIM join message | no out interface before, it shall send unicast PIM join message | |||
| towards multicast source. The upstream neighbor address of the | towards multicast source. The upstream neighbor address of the | |||
| message is the source address. | message is the source address. | |||
| o When the switch receives the unicast PIM join message and finds | o When the switch receives the unicast PIM join message and finds | |||
| out that the upstream neighbor address of the message is not in | out that the upstream neighbor address of the message is not in | |||
| its PIM neighbor lists, it will change the pruned port to be | its PIM neighbor lists, it will convert the pruned port to be | |||
| downstream port. When the (S,G) entry with specific sign has no | downstream port. When the (S,G) entry with specific sign has no | |||
| pruned ports, it should be deleted in order to save the entry | pruned ports, it should be deleted in order to save the entry | |||
| space. | space. | |||
| o By the information from IGMP-snooping entry and PIM-snooping | o By the information from IGMP-snooping entry and PIM-snooping | |||
| entry, the switch can decide whether it shall forward the unicast | entry, the switch can decide whether it shall forward the unicast | |||
| PIM join message towards multicast source. | PIM join message towards multicast source. | |||
| o The role of membership port is prior than that of pruned port, and | o The role of membership port is prior than that of pruned port, and | |||
| the role of pruned port is prior than that of router port. | the role of pruned port is prior than that of router port or | |||
| downstream port. | ||||
| o If two or more switches or PIM FHRs are connected by one port | o If two or more switches or PIM FHRs are connected by one port | |||
| directly, or through HUB or normal switch, some query mechanism | directly, or through HUB or normal switch, some query mechanism | |||
| shall be implemented. | shall be implemented. | |||
| 6.2. solution based on IGMP and IGMP-Snooping | 6.2. solution based on IGMP and IGMP-Snooping | |||
| The key points of it are as follows: | The key points of it are as follows: | |||
| o When the PIM FHR receives a multicast stream, it creates an entry | o When the PIM FHR receives a multicast stream, it creates an entry | |||
| skipping to change at line 397 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 4 ¶ | |||
| Email: young@h3c.com | Email: young@h3c.com | |||
| Hui Liu | Hui Liu | |||
| Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | |||
| Huawei Bld., No.3 Xinxi Rd. | Huawei Bld., No.3 Xinxi Rd. | |||
| Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian Distinct, | Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian Distinct, | |||
| Beijing | Beijing | |||
| China(100085) | China(100085) | |||
| Email: Liuhui47967@huawei.com | Email: Liuhui47967@huawei.com | |||
| Indranil Bhattacharya | ||||
| Cisco Systems | ||||
| India(560037) | ||||
| Email: myselfindranil@gmail.com | ||||
| End of changes. 11 change blocks. | ||||
| 23 lines changed or deleted | 28 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||