idnits 2.17.1 draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing-03.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 (April 12, 2019) is 1840 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 195 == Missing Reference: 'N' is mentioned on line 201, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC7761' is defined on line 272, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3973' is defined on line 280, 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: October 14, 2019 R. Banthia 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 April 12, 2019 9 PIM Null register packing 10 draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing-03 12 Abstract 14 In PIM-SM networks PIM registers are sent from the first hop router 15 to the RP (Rendezvous Point) to signal the presence of Multicast 16 source in the network. There are periodic PIM Null registers sent 17 from first hop router to the RP to keep the state alive at the RP as 18 long as the source is active. The PIM Null register packet carries 19 information about a single Multicast source and group. This document 20 defines a standard to send multiple Multicast source and group 21 information in a single pim Null register packet and the 22 interoperability between the PIM routers which do not understand the 23 packet format with multiple Multicast source and group details. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 14, 2019. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. PIM Register Stop format with capability option . . . . . . . 3 63 3. New PIM Null register message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4. New PIM Register Stop message format . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 1. Introduction 76 PIM Null registers are sent by First hop routers periodically for 77 Multicast streams to keep the states active on the RP as long as the 78 Multicast source is alive. As the number of multicast sources 79 increases, the number of PIM Null register packets that are sent 80 increases at a given time. This results in more PIM packet 81 processing at RP and FHR. The control plane policing (COPP), 82 monitors the packets that gets processed by the control plane. Due 83 to the high rate at which Null registers are received at the RP, this 84 can lead to COPP drops of Multicast PIM Null register packets. This 85 draft proposes a method to efficiently pack multiple PIM Null 86 registers and register stop into a single message as these packets 87 anyway don't contain data. The draft also proposes interoperability 88 with the routers that do not understand the new packet format. 90 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 92 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 93 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 94 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 96 1.2. Terminology 98 RP: Rendezvous Point 100 RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding 102 SPT: Shortest Path Tree 104 FHR: First Hop Router, directly connected to the source 106 LHR: Last Hop Router, directly connected to the receiver 108 2. PIM Register Stop format with capability option 110 A router (FHR) can decide to pack multiple Null registers based on 111 the capability received from the RP as part of Register Stop. This 112 ensures compatibility with routers that don't support processing of 113 the new format. The capability information can be indicated by the 114 RP via the PIM register stop message sent to the FHR. Thus a FHR 115 will switch to the new format only when it learns RP is capable of 116 handling the packed Null register messages. Conversely, a FHR that 117 doesn't support the new format can continue generating the PIM Null 118 register the current way. To exchange the capability information in 119 the Register Stop message, the "reserved" field can be used to 120 indicate this capability in those register stop messages. One bit of 121 the reserved field is used to indicate the "packing" capability (P 122 bit). The rest of the bits in the "Reserved" field will be retained 123 for future use. 125 Figure 1: PIM Register Stop message with capability option 127 0 1 2 3 128 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 1 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 |PIM Ver| Type |P| Reserved | Checksum | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | Group Address (Encoded-Group format) | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) | 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 137 PIM Version, Reserved, Type, Checksum, Group Address, Source Address 138 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.4) 140 P Capability bit used to indicate support for Packed Null Register 142 3. New PIM Null register message 144 New PIM Null register message format includes a count to indicate the 145 number of Null register records in the message. 147 Figure 2: New PIM Null Register message format 148 0 1 2 3 149 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 1 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 |PIM Ver| Type |SubType| Rsvd | Checksum | 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 | count | Reserved2 | 154 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | 156 | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | 157 . . 158 . . 159 . . 160 . . 161 . Group Address[N] . 162 | Source Address[N] | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum 166 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.3) 168 Type, SubType 169 The new packed Null Register Type and SubType values TBD 171 count 172 The count of the number of packed Null register records. 173 A record consists of Group and Source Address 175 Group Address 176 IP address of the Multicast Group 178 Source Address 179 IP Address of the Multicast Source 181 4. New PIM Register Stop message format 183 The new PIM register stop is message includes a count to indicate the 184 number of records that are present in the message. 186 Figure 3: New PIM Register Stop message format 187 0 1 2 3 188 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 1 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 |PIM Ver| Type |SubType| Rsvd | Checksum | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | count | Reserved2 | 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | 195 | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | 196 . . 197 . . 198 . . 199 . . 200 . Group Address[N] . 201 | Source Address[N] | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum 205 Same as RFC 7761 (Section 4.9.3) 207 Type 208 The new Register Stop Type and SubType values TBD 210 Record count 211 The count of the number of packed register stop records. 212 A record consists of Group and Source Address 214 Group Address 215 IP address of the Multicast Group 217 Source Address 218 IP Address of the Multicast Source 220 5. Protocol operation 221 The following combinations exist - 222 FHR and RP both support the new PIM Register formats - 223 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP when a new source is 224 detected 225 b. RP sends a modified register stop towards the FHR that includes 226 capability 227 information by setting the P bit (Figure 2) 228 c. Based on the receipt of new Register Stop, FHR will 229 start packing of Null registers using the new packed register 230 format (Figure 1) 231 d. RP processes the new Null register message and can generate new 232 register Stop messages by packing multiple S,Gs towards the same 233 FHR (Figure 3) 235 FHR supports but RP doesn't support new PIM Register formats- 236 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP 237 b. RP sends a normal register stop without any capability 238 information 239 c. FHR then sends Null registers in the old format 241 RP supports but FHR doesn't support the new PIM Register formats- 242 a. FHR sends the PIM register towards the RP 243 b. RP sends a modified register stop towards the FHR that includes 244 capability information 245 c. Since FHR doesn't support the new format, it sends Null 246 registers in the old format 248 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations 250 The new PIM register format should be enabled only if its supported 251 by all PIM anycast RP members in the RP set for the RP address. 253 7. IANA Considerations 255 This document requires the assignment of 2 new PIM message types for 256 the packed pim register and pim register stop. 258 8. Acknowledgments 260 The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas and Umesh Dudani for 261 contributing to the original idea and also their very helpful 262 comments on the draft. 264 9. References 265 9.1. Normative References 267 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 268 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 269 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 270 . 272 [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., 273 Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent 274 Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification 275 (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March 276 2016, . 278 9.2. Informative References 280 [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol 281 Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol 282 Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, DOI 10.17487/RFC3973, 283 January 2005, . 285 Authors' Addresses 287 Vikas Ramesh Kamath 288 VMware 289 3401 Hillview Ave 290 Palo Alto CA 94304 291 USA 293 Email: vkamath@vmware.com 295 Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram 296 Cisco Systems, Inc. 297 Tasman Drive 298 San Jose CA 95134 299 USA 301 Email: ramaksun@cisco.com 303 Raunak Banthia 304 Cisco Systems, Inc. 305 Tasman Drive 306 San Jose CA 95134 307 USA 309 Email: rbanthia@cisco.com