idnits 2.17.1 draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 11, 2019) is 1866 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 194 == Missing Reference: 'N' is mentioned on line 200, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC7761' is defined on line 271, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3973' is defined on line 279, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group V. Kamath 3 Internet-Draft VMware 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Chokkanathapuram Sundaram 5 Expires: September 12, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 March 11, 2019 8 PIM Null register packing 9 draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing-02 11 Abstract 13 In PIM-SM networks PIM registers are sent from the first hop router 14 to the RP (Rendezvous Point) to signal the presence of Multicast 15 source in the network. There are periodic PIM Null registers sent 16 from first hop router to the RP to keep the state alive at the RP as 17 long as the source is active. The PIM Null register packet carries 18 information about a single Multicast source and group. This document 19 defines a standard to send multiple Multicast source and group 20 information in a single pim Null register packet and the 21 interoperability between the PIM routers which do not understand the 22 packet format with multiple Multicast source and group details. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. PIM Register Stop format with capability option . . . . . . . 3 62 3. New PIM Null register message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. New PIM Register Stop message format . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 1. Introduction 75 PIM Null registers are sent by First hop routers periodically for 76 Multicast streams to keep the states active on the RP as long as the 77 Multicast source is alive. As the number of multicast sources 78 increases, the number of PIM Null register packets that are sent 79 increases at a given time. This results in more PIM packet 80 processing at RP and FHR. The control plane policing (COPP), 81 monitors the packets that gets processed by the control plane. Due 82 to the high rate at which Null registers are received at the RP, this 83 can lead to COPP drops of Multicast PIM Null register packets. This 84 draft proposes a method to efficiently pack multiple PIM Null 85 registers and register stop into a single message as these packets 86 anyway don't contain data. The draft also proposes interoperability 87 with the routers that do not understand the new packet format. 89 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 95 1.2. Terminology 97 RP: Rendezvous Point 99 RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding 101 SPT: Shortest Path Tree 103 FHR: First Hop Router, directly connected to the source 105 LHR: Last Hop Router, directly connected to the receiver 107 2. PIM Register Stop format with capability option 109 A router (FHR) can decide to pack multiple Null registers based on 110 the capability received from the RP as part of Register Stop. This 111 ensures compatibility with routers that don't support processing of 112 the new format. The capability information can be indicated by the 113 RP via the PIM register stop message sent to the FHR. Thus a FHR 114 will switch to the new format only when it learns RP is capable of 115 handling the packed Null register messages. Conversely, a FHR that 116 doesn't support the new format can continue generating the PIM Null 117 register the current way. To exchange the capability information in 118 the Register Stop message, the "reserved" field can be used to 119 indicate this capability in those register stop messages. One bit of 120 the reserved field is used to indicate the "packing" capability (P 121 bit). The rest of the bits in the "Reserved" field will be retained 122 for future use. 124 Figure 1: PIM Register Stop message with capability option 126 0 1 2 3 127 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 |PIM Ver| Type |P| Reserved | Checksum | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 | Group Address (Encoded-Group format) | 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) | 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 PIM Version, Reserved, Type, Checksum, Group Address, Source Address 137 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.4) 139 P Capability bit used to indicate support for Packed Null Register 141 3. New PIM Null register message 143 New PIM Null register message format includes a count to indicate the 144 number of Null register records in the message. 146 Figure 2: New PIM Null Register message format 147 0 1 2 3 148 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 |PIM Ver| Type |SubType| Rsvd | Checksum | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | count | Reserved2 | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | 155 | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | 156 . . 157 . . 158 . . 159 . . 160 . Group Address[N] . 161 | Source Address[N] | 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum 165 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.3) 167 Type, SubType 168 The new packed Null Register Type and SubType values TBD 170 count 171 The count of the number of packed Null register records. 172 A record consists of Group and Source Address 174 Group Address 175 IP address of the Multicast Group 177 Source Address 178 IP Address of the Multicast Source 180 4. New PIM Register Stop message format 182 The new PIM register stop is message includes a count to indicate the 183 number of records that are present in the message. 185 Figure 3: New PIM Register Stop message format 186 0 1 2 3 187 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 188 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 189 |PIM Ver| Type |SubType| Rsvd | Checksum | 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 191 | count | Reserved2 | 192 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 193 | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | 194 | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | 195 . . 196 . . 197 . . 198 . . 199 . Group Address[N] . 200 | Source Address[N] | 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum 204 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.3) 206 Type 207 The new Register Stop Type and SubType values TBD 209 Record count 210 The count of the number of packed register stop records. 211 A record consists of Group and Source Address 213 Group Address 214 IP address of the Multicast Group 216 Source Address 217 IP Address of the Multicast Source 219 5. Protocol operation 220 The following combinations exist - 221 FHR and RP both support the new PIM Register formats - 222 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP when a new source is 223 detected 224 b. RP sends a modified register stop towards the FHR that includes 225 capability 226 information by setting the P bit (Figure 2) 227 c. Based on the receipt of new Register Stop, FHR will 228 start packing of Null registers using the new packed register 229 format (Figure 1) 230 d. RP processes the new Null register message and can generate new 231 register Stop messages by packing multiple S,Gs towards the same 232 FHR (Figure 3) 234 FHR supports but RP doesn't support new PIM Register formats- 235 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP 236 b. RP sends a normal register stop without any capability 237 information 238 c. FHR then sends Null registers in the old format 240 RP supports but FHR doesn't support the new PIM Register formats- 241 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP 242 b. RP sends a modified register stop towards the FHR that includes 243 capability information 244 c. Since FHR doesn't support the new format, it sends Null 245 registers in the old format 247 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations 249 The new PIM register format should be enabled only if its supported 250 by all PIM anycast RP members in the RP set for the RP address. 252 7. IANA Considerations 254 This document requires the assignment of 2 new PIM message types for 255 the packed pim register and pim register stop. 257 8. Acknowledgments 259 The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas and Umesh Dudani for 260 contributing to the original idea and also their very helpful 261 comments on the draft. 263 9. References 264 9.1. Normative References 266 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 267 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 268 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 269 . 271 [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., 272 Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent 273 Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification 274 (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March 275 2016, . 277 9.2. Informative References 279 [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol 280 Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol 281 Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973, 282 January 2005, . 284 Authors' Addresses 286 Vikas Ramesh Kamath 287 VMware 288 3401 Hillview Ave 289 Palo Alto CA 94304 290 USA 292 Email: vkamath@vmware.com 294 Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram 295 Cisco Systems, Inc. 296 Tasman Drive 297 San Jose CA 95134 298 USA 300 Email: ramaksun@cisco.com