< draft-ietf-msdp-spec-16.txt   draft-ietf-msdp-spec-17.txt >
INTERNET-DRAFT Bill Fenner (Editor) INTERNET-DRAFT Bill Fenner (Editor)
draft-ietf-msdp-spec-16.txt David Meyer (Editor) draft-ietf-msdp-spec-17.txt David Meyer (Editor)
Category Informational Category Informational
Expires: November 2003 May 2003 Expires: November 2003 May 2003
Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)
<draft-ietf-msdp-spec-16.txt> <draft-ietf-msdp-spec-17.txt>
Status of this Document Status of this Document
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 11 skipping to change at page 2, line 11
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism
to connect multiple IP Version 4 Protocol Independent Multicast to connect multiple IP Version 4 Protocol Independent Multicast
Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC2362] domains together. Each PIM-SM domain Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC2362] domains together. Each PIM-SM domain
uses its own independent Rendezvous Point (RP) and does not have to uses its own independent Rendezvous Point (RP) and does not have to
depend on RPs in other domains. This draft is intended to document depend on RPs in other domains. This document reflects existing MSDP
existing MSDP implementations in the field. implementations.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Caching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Caching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. SA-Advertisement-Timer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. SA-Advertisement-Timer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. SA-Advertisement-Timer Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. SA-Advertisement-Timer Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. SA Cache Timeout (SA-State Timer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. SA Cache Timeout (SA-State Timer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Peer Hold Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. Peer Hold Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. KeepAlive Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.5. KeepAlive Timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. ConnectRetry Timer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. ConnectRetry Timer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Intermediate MSDP Peers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Intermediate MSDP Peers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. SA Filtering and Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. SA Filtering and Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Encapsulated Data Packets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Encapsulated Data Packets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Other Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Other Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. MSDP Peer-RPF Forwarding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. MSDP Peer-RPF Forwarding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.1. Multicast RPF Routing Information Base (MRIB). .. . . . 11 10.1.1. Multicast RPF Routing Information Base. . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.2. Peer-RPF Route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1.2. Peer-RPF Route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.3. Peer-RPF Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1.3. Peer-RPF Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. MSDP mesh-group semantics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.2. MSDP mesh-group semantics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. MSDP Connection State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. MSDP Connection State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11.1. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.2. Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.3. Peer-specific Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.3. Peer-specific Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.4. Peer-independent Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.4. Peer-independent Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Packet Formats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. Packet Formats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. MSDP TLV format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.1. MSDP TLV format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
12.2.1. IPv4 Source-Active TLV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2.1. IPv4 Source-Active TLV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12.2.2. KeepAlive TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12.2.2. KeepAlive TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. MSDP Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. MSDP Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. SA Data Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 14. SA Data Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15.1. Between PIM Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15.1. Between PIM Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15.2. Between Anycast-RPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15.2. Between Anycast-RPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 16. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 17. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
19.1. IANA Allocated TLV Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
19.2. Experimental TLV Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
20. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 20. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
21. Editor's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 21. Editor's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
22. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 22. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol, MSDP, describes a mechanism
to connect multiple PIM Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC2362] domains to connect multiple PIM Sparse-Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC2362] domains
together. Each PIM-SM domain uses its own independent RP(s) and does together. Each PIM-SM domain uses its own independent RP(s) and does
not have to depend on RPs in other domains. Advantages of this not have to depend on RPs in other domains. Advantages of this
approach include: approach include:
skipping to change at page 11, line 20 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
packet's source address against the interface upon which the packet packet's source address against the interface upon which the packet
was received, the Peer-RPF check compares the RP address carried in was received, the Peer-RPF check compares the RP address carried in
the SA message against the MSDP peer from which the message was the SA message against the MSDP peer from which the message was
received. received.
10.1. Definitions 10.1. Definitions
The following definitions are used in the description of the Peer-RPF The following definitions are used in the description of the Peer-RPF
Forwarding Rules: Forwarding Rules:
10.1.1. Multicast RPF Routing Information Base (MRIB) 10.1.1. Multicast RPF Routing Information Base
The MRIB is the multicast topology table. It is typically derived The Multicast RPF Routing Information Base (MRIB) is the multicast
from the unicast routing table or from other routing protocols such topology table. It is typically derived from the unicast routing
as multi-protocol BGP [RFC2283]. table or from other routing protocols such as multi-protocol BGP
[RFC2283].
10.1.2. Peer-RPF Route 10.1.2. Peer-RPF Route
The Peer-RPF route is the route that the MRIB chooses for a given The Peer-RPF route is the route that the MRIB chooses for a given
address. The Peer-RPF route for a SA's originating RP is used to address. The Peer-RPF route for a SA's originating RP is used to
select the peer from which the SA is accepted. select the peer from which the SA is accepted.
10.1.3. Peer-RPF Forwarding Rules 10.1.3. Peer-RPF Forwarding Rules
An SA message originated by R and received by X from N is accepted if An SA message originated by R and received by X from N is accepted if
skipping to change at page 23, line 7 skipping to change at page 23, line 7
Nickless, John Meylor, Liming Wei, Manoj Leelanivas, Mark Turner, Nickless, John Meylor, Liming Wei, Manoj Leelanivas, Mark Turner,
John Zwiebel, Cristina Radulescu-Banu, Brian Edwards, Selina John Zwiebel, Cristina Radulescu-Banu, Brian Edwards, Selina
Priestley, IJsbrand Wijnands, Tom Pusateri, Kristofer Warell, Henning Priestley, IJsbrand Wijnands, Tom Pusateri, Kristofer Warell, Henning
Eriksson, Thomas Eriksson, Dave Thaler, and Ravi Shekhar provided Eriksson, Thomas Eriksson, Dave Thaler, and Ravi Shekhar provided
useful and productive design feedback and comments. Mike McBride, useful and productive design feedback and comments. Mike McBride,
Leonard Giuliano, Swapna Yelamanchi, Toerless Eckert, John Meylor and Leonard Giuliano, Swapna Yelamanchi, Toerless Eckert, John Meylor and
Ishan Wu contributed to the final version of the draft. Ishan Wu contributed to the final version of the draft.
18. Security Considerations 18. Security Considerations
An MSDP implementation MAY use IPsec [RFC2401] or MD5 to secure An MSDP implementation SHOULD implement Keyed MD5 [RFC2385] to secure
control messages. In particular, the TCP connection between MSDP control messages, and MUST be capable of interoperating with peers
peers MAY be secured using IPsec or MD5. Implementations MUST be that do not support it. However, if one side of the connection is
capable of working with peers which do not provide IPsec or MD5 configured with Keyed MD5 and the other side is not, the connection
security. SA Filters and limits should always be used with MSDP to SHOULD NOT be established.
limit the sources and groups that will be passed between RPs. For
example, MSDP SA messages announcing the following (S,G) ranges that
SHOULD NOT be globally routed:
(*,224.0.1.2/32) SGI-Dogfight In addition, to mitigate state explosion during denial of service and
(*,224.0.1.3/32) Rwhod other attacks, SA filters and limits SHOULD be used with MSDP to
(*,224.0.1.22/32) SVRLOC limit the sources and groups that will be passed between RPs.
(*,224.0.1.22/32) Microsoft-DS
(*,224.0.1.35/32) SVRLOC-DA
(*,224.0.1.39/32) CISCO-RP-ANNOUNCE
(*,224.0.1.40/32) CISCO-RP-DISCOVERY
(*,224.0.2.2/32) SUN-RPC
(*,224.77.0.0/16) Norton Ghost
(*,224.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,225.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,225.1.2.3/32) Altiris
(*,225.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,226.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,226.77.0.0/16) Norton Ghost
(*,226.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,227.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,227.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,228.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,228.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,229.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,229.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,230.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,230.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,231.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,231.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,232.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,232.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,233.0.0.0/8) Source-Specific Multicast
(*,233.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,233.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,234.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,234.42.42.42/32) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,234.142.142.42/31) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.44/30) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.48/28) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.64/26) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.128/29) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.136/30) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.140/31) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,234.142.142.142/32) Phoenix/StorageSoft ImageCast
(*,235.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,235.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,236.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,236.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,237.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,237.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,238.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,238.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,239.0.0.0/8) Administratively Scoped Groups
(*,239.0.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
(*,239.128.0.0/24) Control plane of IGMP snoopers
19. IANA Considerations 19. IANA Considerations
This document defines seven MSDP TLV values. Values for new MSDP TLV This document defines the seven MSDP TLV values specificed in Section
types are to be allocated using an IESG Approval or Standards Action 12.2.
processes. The policy for assigning new MSDP TLV values SHOULD BE
defined in the document defining the new TLV values. 19.1. IANA Allocated TLV Range
MSDP TLV values in the range [8,200] (inclusive) are to be allocated
using an IESG Approval or Standards Action process.
19.2. Experimental TLV Range
TLV values in the range [201,255] (inclusive) are allocated for
experimental use.
20. References 20. References
20.1. Normative References 20.1. Normative References
[RFC1142] Oran, D. "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing [RFC1142] Oran, D. "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing
Protocol", RFC 1142, February 1990. Protocol", RFC 1142, February 1990.
[RFC2178] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2178, April, 1998. [RFC2178] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2178, April, 1998.
skipping to change at page 25, line 12 skipping to change at page 24, line 25
Y. Rekhter., "Multiprotocol Extensions for Y. Rekhter., "Multiprotocol Extensions for
BGP-4", RFC 2283, February 1998. BGP-4", RFC 2283, February 1998.
[RFC2362] Estrin D., et al., "Protocol Independent [RFC2362] Estrin D., et al., "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998. Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D. "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", [RFC2365] Meyer, D. "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast",
RFC 2365, July, 1998. RFC 2365, July, 1998.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture [RFC2385] Heffernan. A, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the
for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. TCP MD5 Signature Option", August, 1998.
[RFC3446] Kim, D., et al., "Anycast Rendezvous Point (RP) [RFC3446] Kim, D., et al., "Anycast Rendezvous Point (RP)
Mechanism using Protocol Independent Multicast Mechanism using Protocol Independent Multicast
(PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
(MSDP)", RFC 3446, January, 2003. (MSDP)", RFC 3446, January, 2003.
20.2. Informative References 20.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March,
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 37 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/