idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 188 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([PIM-SO], [IANA-ALLOCATION], [PIM-SS], [SSM], [PIM-SM]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 99: '...joins MAY tringer (*,G) state toward t...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 106: '...e an RP, all RPs SHOULD NOT offer them...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (April 2001) is 8412 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? 'SSM' on line 45 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'IANA-ALLOCATION' on line 46 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'PIM-SM' on line 49 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'PIM-SS' on line 51 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'PIM-SO' on line 55 looks like a reference Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force G. Shepherd 3 INTERNET-DRAFT Cisco Systems 4 draft-ietf-mboned-ssm232-00.txt E. Luczycki 5 Broadcast.com 6 R. Rockell 7 Sprintlink 8 November, 2000 9 Expires April 2001 11 Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8 13 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet Draft and is in 14 full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of 15 RFC2026. 17 Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet 18 Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. 19 Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as 20 Internet Drafts. Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a 21 maximum of six months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, 22 or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is not 23 appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material or to 24 cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of 28 Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Distribution of this document 30 is unlimited. 32 Abstract 34 IP Multicast group addresses in the 232/8 (232.0.0.0 to 35 232.255.255.255) range are designated as source-specific 36 multicast [SSM] destination addresses and are reserved for use by 37 source-specific applications and protocols [IANA-ALLOCATION]. 38 This document defines operational recommendations to ensure 39 source-specific behavior within the 232/8 range. 41 Introduction Current PIM Sparse Mode [PIM-SM] relies on the 42 shared Rendezvous Point (RP) tree to learn about active sources 43 for a group and to support group-generic (not source specific) 44 data distribution. The IP Multicast group address range 232/8 has 45 been designated for source-specific [SSM] applications and 46 protocols [IANA-ALLOCATION] and should support source-only trees 47 only, precluding the requirement of an RP and a shared tree; 48 active sources in the 232/8 range will be discovered out of band. 49 The PIM Sparse Mode [PIM-SM] Designated Routers (DR), with local 50 membership, are capable of joining the shortest path tree for the 51 source directly using Source-Specific PIM [PIM-SS]. 53 Operational best common practices in the 232/8 group address 54 range are necessary to ensure shortest path source-only trees 55 across multiple domains in the Internet [PIM-SO], and to prevent 56 data from sources sending to groups in the 232/8 range from 57 arriving via shared trees. This avoids unwanted data arrival, and 58 allows several sources to use the same group address without 59 conflict at the receivers. 61 The operational practices should 63 o Prevent local sources from sending to shared tree 65 o Prevent remote sources from being learned/joined via MSDP 67 o Prevent receivers from joining the shared tree 69 o Prevent RP's as candidates for 232/8 71 Operational practices in 232/8 Preventing local sources from 72 sending to shared tree Eliminatng the use of shared trees for 73 groups in 232/8, while mainaining coexistance with PIM-SM, 74 behavior of the RP and/or the DR needs to be modified. This can 75 be accomplished by 77 - preventing data for 232/8 groups from being sent encapsulated to the 78 RP by the DR 79 - preventing the RP from accepting registers for 232/8 groups from the DR 80 - preventing the RP from forwarding accepted data down (*,G) tree 81 Preventing remote sources from being learned/joined via MSDP 82 PIM-SS does not require active source announcements via MSDP. All 83 source announcements are received out of band, the the last hop 84 router is responsible for sending (S,G) joins directly to the 85 source. To prevent propagation of SAs in the 232/8 range, an RP 86 should 88 - never originate an SA for any 232/8 groups 89 - never accept or forward an SA for any 232/8 groups. 90 Preventing receivers from joining the shared tree Local PIM 91 domain practices need to be enforced to prevent local receivers 92 from joining the shared tree for 232/8 groups. This can be 93 accomplished by 95 - preventing DR from sending (*,G) joins 96 - preventing RP from accepting (*,G) join 98 Within a local PIM domain, any last-hop router NOT preventing (*,G) 99 joins MAY tringer (*,G) state toward the RP which intersects an 100 existing (S,G) tree, allowing the receiver on the shared tree to 101 receive the data. So if the last-hop routers are not preventing 102 (*,G) joins, then all routers in the domain must also prevent 103 (*,G) joins. 105 Preventing RP's as candidates for 232/8 Because PIM-SS does not 106 require an RP, all RPs SHOULD NOT offer themselves as candidates 107 in the 232/8 range. This can be accomplished by 109 - preventing RP/BSR from announcing in the 232/8 range 110 - preventing DRs from accepting deligations in this range 111 - precluding RP functionality on RP for the 232/8 range 113 References Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, 114 http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-addresses. 115 Holbrook, H., Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast for IP (SSM)", 116 draft-holbrook-ssm-00.txt, September, 2000. D. Estrin, et. al., 117 "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol 118 Specification", RFC 2362, June, 1998 Bhaskar, N., 119 "Source Specific Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM-SS)", draft- 120 bhaskar-pim-ss-00.txt, March, 2000. Diot, C., Giuliano, L., 121 Rockell, R., "Deployment of PIM-SO at Sprint (PIM-SO)", draft- 122 bhattach-diot-PIMSO-00.txt, March, 2000. 123 Farinacci, D., et. al. 124 "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", draft-ietf-msdp- 125 spec-05.txt, February, 2000. 127 Author's Addresses 128 Greg Shepherd 129 Cisco Systems 130 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA, 95134 Phone: +1 541 131 912 9758 Email: shep@cisco.com 133 Ed Luczycki Broadcast.com eds@yahoo-inc.com 135 Robert Rockell 136 Sprint Internet Engineering Reston, Virginia 137 rrockell@sprintlink.net