Internet DRAFT - draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping
draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping
INTERNET DRAFT Venu Hemige
Alcatel
Internet Engineering Task Force Yetik Serbest
Document: SBC
draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt Ray Qiu
Suresh Boddapati
Alcatel
July 2006
Category: Informational
Expires: January 2007
PIM Snooping over VPLS
Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
In Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), as also in IEEE Bridged
Networks, the switches simply flood multicast traffic on all ports in
the LAN by default. IGMP Snooping is commonly deployed to ensure
multicast traffic is not forwarded on ports without IGMP receivers.
The procedures and recommendations for IGMP Snooping are defined in
[IGMP-SNOOP]. But when any protocol other than IGMP is used, the
common practice is to simply flood multicast traffic to all ports.
PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, PIM-BIDIR are widely deployed routing protocols. PIM
Snooping procedures are important to restrict multicast traffic to
only the routers interested in receiving such traffic.
[Page 1]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
While most of the PIM Snooping procedures defined here also apply to
IEEE Bridged Networks, VPLS demands certain special procedures due to
the split-horizon rules that require the Provider Edge (PE) devices
to co-operate. This document describes the procedures and
recommendations for PIM-Snooping in VPLS to facilitate replication to
only those ports behind which there are interested PIM routers and/or
IGMP hosts.
This document also describes procedures for PIM Proxy. PIM Proxy is
required on PEs for VPLS Multicast to work correctly when Join
suppression is enabled in the VPLS. PIM Proxy also helps scale VPLS
Multicast much better than just PIM Snooping.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.............................................3
1.1. Assumptions............................................4
1.2. Definitions............................................4
2. Multicast Traffic over VPLS..............................5
2.1. Constraining of IP Multicast in a VPLS.................6
2.2. IPv6 Considerations....................................7
2.3. PIM-SM (*,*,RP) Considerations.........................7
2.4. PIM Snooping vs PIM Proxy..............................7
2.4.1. Differences between PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy.......8
3. PIM Snooping for VPLS....................................9
3.1. General Rules for PIM Snooping in VPLS.................9
3.1.1. Snooping PIM Packets................................10
3.2. Discovering PIM Routers...............................10
3.3. PIM-SM and PIM-SSM....................................11
3.3.1. Building PIM-SM Snooping States.....................11
3.3.2. Explaination for per (S,G,N) states.................13
3.3.3. Receiving (*,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages..........13
3.3.4. Receiving (S,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages..........16
3.3.5. Receiving (S,G,rpt) Join/Prune Messages.............17
3.3.6. Sending (*,G) Join/Prune Messages...................17
3.3.7. Sending (S,G) Join/Prune Messages...................18
3.3.8. Sending PIM Join/Prune message upstream.............18
3.3.9. Triggering ASSERT Election in PIM-SM................19
3.4. Bidirectional-PIM (PIM-BIDIR).........................22
3.4.1. Building PIM-BIDIR Snooping States..................23
3.5. PIM-DM................................................23
[Page 2]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
3.5.1. Building PIM-DM Snooping States.....................23
3.5.2. PIM-DM Downstream Per-Port PIM(S,G,N) State Machine.23
3.5.3. Triggering ASSERT election in PIM-DM................24
3.6. PIM Proxy.............................................24
3.6.1. Downstream PIM Proxy behavior.......................24
3.6.2. Upstream PIM Proxy behavior.........................25
3.7. Directly Connected Multicast Source...................26
3.8. Data Forwarding Rules.................................26
3.8.1. PIM-SM Data Forwarding Rules........................27
3.8.2. PIM-BIDIR Data Forwarding Rules.....................28
3.8.3. PIM-DM Data Forwarding Rules........................28
4. IANA Considerations.....................................29
5. Security Considerations.................................29
6. References..............................................29
6.1. Normative References..................................29
6.2. Informative References................................30
1. Introduction
In Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), the Provider Edge (PE) devices
provide a logical interconnect such that Customer Edge (CE) devices
belonging to a specific VPLS instance appear to be connected by a
single LAN. Forwarding information base for particular VPLS instance
is populated dynamically by source MAC address learning. This is a
straightforward solution to support unicast traffic, with reasonable
flooding for unicast unknown traffic. Since a VPLS provides LAN
emulation for IEEE bridges as wells as for routers, the unicast and
multicast traffic need to follow the same path for layer-2 protocols
to work properly. As such, multicast traffic is treated as broadcast
traffic and is flooded to every site in the VPLS instance.
VPLS solutions (i.e., [VPLS-LDP] and [VPLS-BGP]) perform replication
for multicast traffic at the ingress PE devices. When replicated at
the ingress PE, multicast traffic wastes bandwidth when:
1. Multicast traffic is sent to sites with no members,
2. Pseudo wires to different sites go through a shared path, and
3. Multicast traffic is forwarded along a shortest path tree as
opposed to the minimum cost spanning tree.
This document is addressing the first problem by IGMP and PIM
snooping. Problems #2 and #3 are orthogonal to #1 and outside the
scope of this document. The different mechanisms to tunnel IP
multicast traffic in a VPLS from the ingress PE to the egress PEs are
discussed in [VPLS-MCAST-TREES].
Using VPLS in conjunction with IGMP and/or PIM snooping has the
following advantages:
[Page 3]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
- It improves VPLS to support IP multicast efficiently (not
necessarily optimum, as there can still be bandwidth waste if
traffic from a PE to other PE(s) is not forwarded along a
minimum cost spanning tree.),
- It prevents sending multicast traffic to sites with no
members.
Procedures for IGMP Snooping are specified in [IGMP-SNOOP]. This
document describes the procedures for Protocol Independent Multicast
(PIM) snooping over VPLS for efficient distribution of IP multicast
traffic. It also describes the rules when both IGMP and PIM are
active in a VPLS instance.
This document also describes procedures for PIM Proxy. PIM Proxy is
required on PEs for VPLS Multicast to work correctly when Join
suppression is enabled in the VPLS. PIM Proxy also helps scale VPLS
Multicast much better than just PIM Snooping.
1.1. Assumptions
Since this draft describes the procedures for PIM Snooping and PIM
Proxy, the draft assumes that the reader has a good understanding of
the PIM protocols. The text in this draft is written in the same
style as the PIM RFCs to help correlate the concepts and to make it
easier to follow. In order to avoid replicating the text relating to
PIM protocol handling here, this draft assumes that the user will
infer such detail from the PIM RFC referenced in this document.
Deviations in protocol handling specific to PIM Snooping and PIM
Proxy are specified in this draft. There could be cross references
into definitions of macros and procedures from the PIM RFCs.
1.2. Definitions
There are several definitions referenced in this document that are
well described in the PIM RFCs [PIM-SM, PIM-BIDIR, PIM-DM].
The following definitions and abbreviations are used throughout this
document:
- A port is defined as either an attachment circuit (AC) or a
Pseudo-Wire (PW).
- When we say a PIM message is 'received' on a port, it means
any one of the following:
o that a PIM Snooping switch snooped the PIM message.
o that a PIM message was received via LDP on a PW if LDP (as
defined in [VPLS-MCAST-LDP]) is used for propogating
multicast states among the PEs.
[Page 4]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Abbreviations used in the document:
- S: IP Address of the Multicast Source.
- G: IP Address of the Multicast Group.
- N: Upstream Neighbor field in a Join/Prune/Graft message.
- Rport(X): Port on which neighbor X is learnt
Other definitions are explained in the sections where they are
introduced.
2. Multicast Traffic over VPLS
In VPLS, if a PE receives a frame from an Attachment Circuit (AC)
with no matching entry in the forwarding information base for that
particular VPLS instance, it floods the frame to all other PEs (which
are part of this VPLS instance) and to directly connected ACs (other
than the one that the frame is received from). The flooding of a
frame occurs when:
- The destination MAC address has not been learned,
- The destination MAC address is a broadcast address,
- The destination MAC address is a multicast address.
Malicious attacks (e.g., receiving unknown frames constantly) aside,
the first situation is handled by VPLS solutions as long as
destination MAC address can be learned. After that point on, the
frames will not be flooded. A PE is REQUIRED to have safeguards,
such as unknown unicast limiting and MAC table limiting, against
malicious unknown unicast attacks.
There is no way around flooding broadcast frames. To prevent runaway
broadcast traffic from adversely affecting the VPLS service and the
SP network, a PE is REQUIRED to have tools to rate limit the
broadcast traffic as well.
Similar to broadcast frames, multicast frames are flooded as well, as
a PE cannot know where multicast members reside. Rate limiting
multicast traffic, while possible, should be should be done carefully
since several network control protocols relies on multicast. For one
thing, layer-2 and layer-3 protocols utilize multicast for their
operation. For instance, Bridge Protocol Data Units (BPDUs) use an
IEEE assigned all bridges multicast MAC address, and OSPF is
multicast to all OSPF routers multicast MAC address. If the rate-
limiting of multicast traffic is not done properly, the customer
network will experience instability and poor performance. For the
other, it is not straightforward to determine the right rate limiting
parameters for multicast.
A VPLS solution MUST NOT affect the operation of customer layer-2
protocols (e.g., BPDUs). Additionally, a VPLS solution MUST NOT
affect the operation of layer-3 protocols.
[Page 5]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
In the following section, we describe procedures to constrain the
flooding of IP multicast traffic in a VPLS.
2.1. Constraining of IP Multicast in a VPLS
For a PE in a VPLS (a layer-2 device) to constrain IP multicast
traffic, it needs to be able to learn which CEs are interested in
receiving multicast traffic for what flows.
The most obvious solution is to snoop IP multicast control traffic at
the PEs. Snooping as a solution to constrain multicast traffic makes
sense under the following circumstances:
- The CE-CE protocol the PEs snoop is a popular and widely
deployed protocol.
- It does not require any changes on the CEs and it should be
completely transparent to the CEs.
Using VPLS in conjunction with IGMP and/or PIM snooping has the
following advantages:
- It improves VPLS to support IP multicast efficiently (not
necessarily optimum, as there can still be bandwidth waste if
traffic from a PE to other PE(s) is not forwarded along a
minimum cost spanning tree.),
- It prevents sending multicast traffic to sites with no
members.
Other routing protocols such as DVMRP or MOSPF are outside the scope
of this document.
In the following sub-sections, we provide some guidelines for the
implementation of PIM snooping in VPLS. Snooping techniques need to
be employed on ACs at the downstream PEs. Snooping techniques can
also be employed on PWs at the upstream PEs. This may work well for
small to medium scale deployments. However, if there are a large
number of VPLS instances with a large number of PEs per instances,
then the amount of snooping required at the upstream PEs can
overwhelm the upstream PEs. In [VPLS-MCAST-LDP] and [VPLS-MCAST-BGP],
procedures are defined to exchange multicast membership information
between the PEs using LDP or BGP. Using a reliable mechanism like LDP
or BGP allows the upstream PEs to eliminate the requirement to snoop
on PWs. It also eliminates the need to refresh multicast states on
the upstream PEs.
This document also describes the guidelines for PIM Proxy in VPLS.
The specifications in this document could be used for either PIM
Snooping or PIM Proxy. The PIM Proxy solution is described in section
3.6. Differences that need to be observed while implementing one or
the other and recommendations on which method to employ in different
scenarios are noted in section 2.4.
[Page 6]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
2.2. IPv6 Considerations
In VPLS, PEs forward Ethernet frames received from CEs and as such
are agnostic of the layer-3 protocol used by the CEs. However, as an
IGMP and PIM snooping switch, the PE would have to look deeper into
the IP and IGMP/PIM packets and build snooping state based on that.
The PIM Protocol specifications handle both IPv4 and IPv6. The
specification for PIM Snooping in this draft can be applied to both
IPv4 and IPv6 payloads.
2.3. PIM-SM (*,*,RP) Considerations
This draft does not address (*,*,RP) states in the VPLS network.
Although [PIM-SM] specifies that routers MUST support (*,*,RP)
states, there are very few implementations that actually support it
in actual deployments. Given the complexity of supporting (*,*,RP)
states and knowing that there is little to no use to supporting it,
this draft omits the specification relating to (*,*,RP) support.
2.4. PIM Snooping vs PIM Proxy
PIM Snooping switches simply snoop on PIM packets as they are being
forwarded in the VPLS. As such it truly provides transparent LAN
services since no customer packets are modified or consumed or new
packets introduced in the VPLS. It is also slightly simpler to
implement than PIM Proxy. However for PIM Snooping to work correctly,
it is a requirement that CE routers MUST disable Join suppression in
the VPLS.
Given that a large number of existing CE deployments do not support
disabling of Join suppression and given the operational complexity
for a provider to manage disabling of Join suppression in the VPLS,
it becomes a difficult solution to deploy. Another disadvantage of
PIM Snooping as a solution is that it does not scale as well as PIM
Proxy. If there are a large number of CEs in a VPLS, then every CE
will see every other CE's Join/Prune messages.
PIM Proxy on the PEs has the advantage that it does not require Join
suppression to be disabled in the VPLS. Multicast as a VPLS service
can be very easily be provided without requiring any changes on the
CE routers. It also helps scale VPLS Multicast very well since the
PEs intelligently forward only one Join/Prune message for a given
flow and only to the upstream CE.
PIM Proxy as a solution however loses the transparency argument since
Join/Prunes could get modified or even consumed at a PE. Also, new
packets could get introduced in the VPLS. However, this loss of
transparency is limited to PIM control packets. It is in the interest
of optimizing multicast in the VPLS and helping a VPLS network scale
much better. Data traffic will still be completely transparent.
[Page 7]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Both PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy procedures can be used in conjunction
with [VPLS-MCAST-LDP] for propogating multicast states among the PEs.
If [VPLS-MCAST-LDP] is used for propogating multicast states among
the PEs, then both PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy switches do not process
any PIM packets arriving on a PW.
2.4.1. Differences between PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy
For PIM-SM and PIM-BIDIR, a PIM Snooping/Proxy Switch only needs to
examine PIM Hello and Join/Prune messages. PIM Proxy for PIM-DM is
for future study and is not currently specified in this draft.
The proxy proposal is to perform proxy of only the Join/Prune
messages while snooping Hello messages. Details on the PIM Proxy
solution are discussed in section 3.6. This section is presented
here to say that most of the procedures to follow (unless explicitly
specified) are common to both PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy.
Differences between a PIM Snooping switch and a PIM Proxy switch can
be summarized as the following:
+------------------------------|--------------------------------+
| PIM Snooping | PIM Proxy |
+==============================|================================+
| 1. PIM Snooping switches | 1. PIM Proxy switches also |
| snoop Hello and Join/Prune| snoop PIM Hello messages |
| messages while they are | while they are transparently|
| transparently flooded in | flooded in the VPLS. But |
| the VPLS. | they consume PIM Join/Prune |
| | messages and do not flood |
| | them as is in the VPLS. |
+------------------------------|--------------------------------+
| 2. PIM Snooping switches do | 2. PIM Proxy switches may |
| not originate any PIM | originate new or modified |
| packets. They may however | PIM packets. |
| originate PIM messages to | |
| be sent via LDP on PWs. | |
+------------------------------|--------------------------------+
Other than the above simple differences, most of the procedures are
common to PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy. There are additional
simplifications to PIM Snooping that can be made if [VPLS-MCAST-LDP]
is not used for PE-PE communication, but otherwise the procedures for
PIM Snooping and PIM Proxy are mostly the same. In the text to
follow, we describe the text as procedures for PIM Snooping. Unless
otherwise specified, such procedures apply to PIM Proxy as well.
[Page 8]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
3. PIM Snooping for VPLS
IGMP snooping procedures described in [IGMP-SNOOP] provide efficient
delivery of IP multicast traffic in a given VPLS service when end
stations are connected to the VPLS. However, when VPLS is offered as
a WAN service it is likely that the CE devices are routers and would
run PIM between them. To provide efficient IP multicasting in such
cases, it is necessary that the PE routers offering the VPLS service
do PIM snooping.
PIM is a multicast routing protocol, which runs exclusively between
routers. PIM shares many of the common characteristics of a routing
protocol, such as discovery messages (e.g., neighbor discovery using
Hello messages), topology information (e.g., multicast tree), and
error detection and notification (e.g., dead timer and designated
router election). On the other hand, PIM does not participate in any
kind of exchange of databases, as it uses the unicast routing table
to provide reverse path information for building multicast trees.
There are a few variants of PIM. In PIM-DM ([PIM-DM]), multicast
data is pushed towards the members similar to broadcast mechanism.
PIM-DM constructs a separate delivery tree for each multicast group.
As opposed to PIM-DM, other PIM flavors (PIM-SM [PIM-SM], PIM-SSM
[PIM-SSM], and PIM-BIDIR [PIM-BIDIR]) invoke a pull methodology
instead of push technique.
PIM routers periodically exchange Hello messages to discover and
maintain stateful sessions with neighbors. After neighbors are
discovered, PIM routers can signal their intentions to join or prune
specific multicast groups. This is accomplished by having downstream
routers send an explicit Join/Prune message (for the sake of
generalization, consider Graft messages for PIM-DM as Join messages)
to the upstream routers. The Join/Prune message can be group
specific (*,G) or group and source specific (S,G).
In PIM snooping, a PE snoops on the PIM message exchange between
routers, and builds its multicast states.
Based on the multicast states, it forwards IP multicast traffic
accordingly to avoid unnecessary flooding.
In the following sub-sections, snooping mechanisms for each variety
of PIM are specified.
3.1. General Rules for PIM Snooping in VPLS
The following rules for the correct operation of IGMP/PIM snooping
MUST be followed.
- IGMP messages, PIM messages and multicast data traffic
forwarded by PEs MUST follow the split-horizon rule for mesh
PWs as defined in [VPLS-LDP].
[Page 9]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
- IGMP/PIM snooping states in a PE MUST be per VPLS instance.
- Multicast traffic MUST be replicated per PW and AC basis,
i.e., even if there are more than one PIM neighbor behind a
PW/AC, only one replication MUST be sent to that PW/AC.
3.1.1. Snooping PIM Packets
PIM-SM and PIM-BIDIR snooping PEs need to snoop on just the PIM Hello
and PIM Join/Prune messages to build its multicast states.
- PIM-DM snooping PEs have to also snoop on PIM Graft and PIM
State Refresh messages.
3.2. Discovering PIM Routers
A PIM Snooping PE MUST snoop on PIM Hellos received on ACs and PWs.
PIM Hellos are used by the snooping switch to discover PIM routers
and their characteristics.
For each neighbor discovered by a PE, it includes an entry in the PIM
Neighbor Database with the following fields:
- Layer 2 encapsulation for the Router sending the PIM Hello.
- IP Address and address family of the Router sending the PIM
Hello.
- Port (AC / PW) on which the PIM Hello was received.
- Hello TLVs
The PE should be able to interpret and act on Hello TLVs currently
defined in the PIM RFCs. The TLVs of particular interest in this
document are:
- Hello-Hold-Time
- Tracking Support
- DR Priority
Please refer to [PIM-SM] for a list of the Hello TLVs.
When a PIM Hello is received, the PE MUST reset the neighbor-expiry-
timer to Hello-Hold-Time. If a PE does not receive a Hello message
from a router within Hello-Hold-Time, the PE MUST remove that
neighbor from its PIM Neighbor Database. If a PE receives a Hello
message from a router with Hello-Hold-Time value set to zero, the PE
MUST remove that router from the PIM snooping state immediately.
From the PIM Neighbor Database, a PE MUST be able to use the
procedures defined in [PIM-SM] to identify the Designated Router in
[Page 10]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
the VPLS instance. It should also be able to determine if Tracking
Support is active in the VPLS instance.
3.3. PIM-SM and PIM-SSM
The key characteristic of PIM-SM and PIM-SSM is explicit join
behavior. In this model, multicast traffic is only forwarded to
locations that specifically request it. The root node of a tree is
the Rendezvous Point (RP) in case of a shared tree (PIM-SM only) or
the first hop router that is directly connected to the multicast
source in the case of a shortest path tree. All the procedures
described in this section apply to both PIM-SM and PIM-SSM, except
for the fact that there is no (*,G) state in PIM-SSM.
The procedures to discover PIM-SM routers in a VPLS instance are as
described in section 3.2.
3.3.1. Building PIM-SM Snooping States
PIM-SM and PIM-SSM Snooping states are built by snooping on the PIM-
SM Join/Prune messages received on AC/PWs.
The downstream state machine of a PIM-SM snooping switch very closely
resembles the downstream state machine of PIM-SM routers. The
downstream state consists of:
Per downstream (Port, *, G):
- DownstreamJPState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Join" (J), "Prune
Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, *, G, N):
- Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
- Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
Per downstream (Port, S, G):
- DownstreamJPState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Join" (J), "Prune
Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, S, G, N):
- Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
- Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
Per downstream (Port, S, G, rpt):
- DownstreamJPRptState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Pruned" (P),
"Prune Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, S, G, rpt, N):
- Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
- Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
[Page 11]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Where S is the address of the multicast source, G is the Group
address and N is the upstream neighbor field in the Join/Prune
message. Notice that unlike on PIM-SM routers where PPT and ET are
per (Interface, S, G), PIM Snooping switches have to maintain PPT and
ET per (Port, S, G, N). The reasons for this are explained in section
3.3.2.
Apart from the above states, we define the following state
summarization macros.
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G): If there is one or more Join(*,G) received on
any port with upstream neighbor N and ET(N) is active, then N is
added to UpstreamNeighbors(*,G). This set is used to determine if a
Join(*,G) or a Prune(*,G) with upstream neighbor N needs to be sent
upstream.
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G): If there is one or more Join(S,G) received on
any port with upstream neighbor N and ET(N) is active, then N is
added to UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). This set is used to determine if a
Join(S,G) or a Prune(S,G) with upstream neighbor N needs to be sent
upstream.
UpstreamPorts(G): This is the set of all ports on which the Upstream
Neighbors in UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) and the UpstreamNeighbors(S,G)
for the given G are learnt. This set is used in section 3.3.8. to
determine the ports on which Join/Prune messages must be sent. Data
traffic MUST also be forwarded to these ports to facilitate assert
election in the VPLS.
PWPorts: This is the set of all PWs.
OutgoingPortList(*,G): This is the set of all ports to which traffic
needs to be forwarded on a (*,G) match. Split Horizon rules apply as
noted in section 3.8.
OutgoingPortList(S,G): This is the set of all ports to which traffic
needs to be forwarded on an (S,G) match. Split Horizon rules apply as
noted in section 3.8.
NumETsActive(Port,*,G): Number of (Port,*,G,N) entries that have
Expiry Timer running. This macro keeps track of the number of
Join(*,G)s that are received on this Port with different upstream
neighbors.
NumETsActive(Port,S,G): Number of (Port,S,G,N) entries that have
Expiry Timer running. This macro keeps track of the number of
Join(*,G)s that are received on this Port with different upstream
neighbors.
[Page 12]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
JoinAttributes(*,G): Join attributes [PIM-JOIN-ATTR] are TLVs that
may be present in received Join(*,G) messages. If present, they must
be copied to JoinAttributes(*,G).
JoinAttributes(S,G): Join attributes [PIM-JOIN-ATTR] are TLVs that
may be present in received Join(S,G) messages. If present, they must
be copied to JoinAttributes(S,G).
Since there are a few differences between the downstream state
machines of PIM-SM Routers and PIM-SM snooping switches, we specify
the details of the downstream state machine of PIM-SM snooping
switches at the risk of repeating most of the text documented in
[PIM-SM].
3.3.2. Explaination for per (S,G,N) states
In PIM Routing protocols, states are built per (S,G). On a router, an
(S,G) has only one RPF-Neighbor. However, a PIM Snooping switch does
not have the Layer 3 routing information available to the routers in
order to determine the RPF-Neighbor for a multicast flow. It merely
discovers it by snooping the Join/Prune message. A PE could have
snooped on two or more different Join/Prune messages for the same
(S,G) that could have carried different Upstream-Neighbor fields.
This could happen during transient network conditions or due to dual-
homed sources. A PE cannot make assumptions on which one to pick, but
instead must facilitate the CE routers decide which Upstream Neighbor
gets elected the RPF-Neighbor. And for this purpose, the PE will have
to track downstream and upstream Join/Prune states per (S,G,N).
3.3.3. Receiving (*,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages
A Join(*,G) or Prune(*,G) is "received" when the port on which it was
received is not also the port on which the upstream-neighbor N of the
Join/Prune(*,G) was learnt.
When a router receives a Join(*,G) or a Prune(*,G) with upstream
neighbor N, it must process the message as defined in the state
machine below. Note that the macro computations of the various macros
resulting from this state machine transition is exactly as specified
in the PIM-SM RFC [PIM-SM].
[Page 13]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
We define the following per-port (*,G,N) macro to help with the state
machine below.
Figure 1: Downstream per-port (*,G) state machine in tabular form
+---------------++----------------------------------------+
| || Previous State |
| ++------------+--------------+------------+
| Event ||NoInfo (NI) | Join (J) | Prune-Pend |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
| Receive ||-> J state | -> J state | -> J state |
| Join(*,G) || Action | Action | Action |
| || RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> PP state | -> PP state|
|Prune(*,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> J state | - |
|Prune(*,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
NumETsActive>1 || | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|PPT(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
| || | Action | Action |
| || | PPTExpiry(N) |PPTExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> NI state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive>1 || | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
Action RxJoin(N):
If ET(N) is not already running, then start ET(N). Otherwise restart
ET(N).
If N is not already in UpstreamNeighbors(*,G), then add N to
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) and trigger a Join(*,G) with upstream neighbor
N to be forwarded upstream as specified in section 3.3.8.
Record N as RPF_Neighbor(*,G).
If there are Join Attributes in the received (S,G) message and if the
Join Attributes are different from the recorded JoinAttributes(S,G),
then copy them into JoinAttributes(S,G). Also trigger a Join(S,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8.
[Page 14]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Action PPTExpiry(N):
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). If there are no other (Port,*,G)
states with NumETsActive(Port,*,G) > 0, then trigger a Prune(*,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8. Then delete N from UpstreamNeighbors(*,G).
Send a Prune-Echo(*,G) with upstream-neighbor N on the downstream
port.
Action ETExpiry(N):
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). If there are no other (Port,*,G)
states with NumETsActive(Port,*,G) > 0, then trigger a Prune(*,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8. Then delete N from UpstreamNeighbors(*,G).
[Page 15]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
3.3.4. Receiving (S,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages
A Join(S,G) or Prune(S,G) is "received" when the port on which it was
received is not also the port on which the upstream-neighbor N of the
Join/Prune(S,G) was learnt.
When a router receives a Join(S,G) or a Prune(S,G) with upstream
neighbor N, it must process the message as defined in the state
machine below. Note that the macro computations of the various macros
resulting from this state machine transition is exactly as specified
in the PIM-SM RFC [PIM-SM].
Figure 2: Downstream per-port (S,G) state machine in tabular form
+---------------++----------------------------------------+
| || Previous State |
| ++------------+--------------+------------+
| Event ||NoInfo (NI) | Join (J) | Prune-Pend |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
| Receive ||-> J state | -> J state | -> J state |
| Join(S,G) || Action | Action | Action |
| || RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> PP state | -> PP state|
|Prune (S,G) and|| | Start PPT(N) | |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> J state | - |
|Prune(S,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
NumETsActive>1 || | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|PPT(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
| || | Action | Action |
| || | PPTExpiry(N) |PPTExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> NI state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive>1 || | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
Action RxJoin(N):
If ET(N) is not already running, then start ET(N). Otherwise, restart
ET(N).
[Page 16]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
If N is not already in UpstreamNeighbors(S,G), then add N to
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) and trigger a Join(S,G) with upstream neighbor
N to be forwarded upstream as specified in section 3.3.8.
Record N as RPF_Neighbor(S,G).
If there are Join Attributes in the received (S,G) message and if the
Join Attributes are different from the recorded JoinAttributes(S,G),
then copy them into JoinAttributes(S,G). Also trigger a Join(S,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8.
Action PPTExpiry(N):
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). If there are no other (Port,S,G)
states with NumETsActive(Port,S,G) > 0, then trigger a Prune(S,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8. Then delete N from UpstreamNeighbors(S,G).
Send a Prune-Echo(S,G) with upstream-neighbor N on the downstream
port.
Action ETExpiry(N):
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). If there are no other (Port,S,G)
states with NumETsActive(Port,S,G) > 0, then trigger a Prune(S,G)
with upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream as specified in
section 3.3.8. Then delete N from UpstreamNeighbors(S,G).
3.3.5. Receiving (S,G,rpt) Join/Prune Messages
A Join(S,G,rpt) or Prune(S,G,rpt) is "received" when the port on which
it was received is not also the port on which the upstream-neighbor N
of the Join/Prune(S,G,rpt) was learnt.
While it is important to ensure that the (S,G) and (*,G) state machines
allow for handling per (S,G,N) states, it is not as important for
(S,G,rpt) states. It suffices to say that the downstream (S,G,rpt)
state machine is the same as what is defined in section 4.5.4 of the
PIM-SM RFC [PIM-SM].
3.3.6. Sending (*,G) Join/Prune Messages
A PIM Snooping PE MUST implement the Upstream (*,G) state machine for
which the procedures are similar to what is defined in section 4.5.6
of [PIM-SM]. Section 3.3.8. of this draft specifies how the message
should be sent.
For the purposes of the Upstream (*,G) state machine, a Join(*,G) or
Prune(*,G) message with upstream neighbor N is "seen" on a PIM
Snooping switch if the port on which the message was received is also
the port on which the upstream neighbor N was learnt.
[Page 17]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
3.3.7. Sending (S,G) Join/Prune Messages
A PIM Snooping PE MUST implement the Upstream (S,G) state machine for
which the procedures are similar to what is defined in section 4.5.6
of [PIM-SM]. Section 3.3.8. of this draft specifies how the message
should be sent.
For the purposes of the Upstream (S,G) state machine, a Join(*,G) or
Prune(*,G) message with upstream neighbor N is "seen" on a PIM
Snooping switch if the port on which the message was received is also
the port on which the upstream neighbor N was learnt.
3.3.8. Sending PIM Join/Prune message upstream.
The downstream Join/Prune state machines above describe when PIM
Join/Prune packets must be forwarded upstream and with what upstream
neighbor field. In order to correctly facilitate assert among the CE
routers, such Join/Prunes need to sent not only towards the upstream
neighbor, but also on certain PWs.
If JoinAttributes(*,G) is not empty, then it must be encoded in a
Join(*,G) message sent upstream.
If JoinAttributes(S,G) is not empty, then it must be encoded in a
Join(S,G) message sent upstream.
If the Join/Prune message being sent out is a refresh Join(*,G)
message, then send the refresh Join(*,G) on all ports in
UpstreamPorts(G). The Upstream Neighbor field should be the recorded
RPF_Neighbor(*,G).
If the Join/Prune message being sent out is a refresh Join(S,G)
message, then send the refresh Join(S,G) on all ports in
UpstreamPorts(G). The Upstream Neighbor field should be the recorded
RPF_Neighbor(S,G).
If the Join/Prune message being sent out is a triggered Join/Prune
message (due to an event in the downstream Join/Prune state machine),
then the following rules apply. These rules apply to both (S,G) and
(*,G) Join/Prune messages to be sent out:
- The upstream neighbor field N in the Join/Prune to be sent is
dictated by the downstream Join/Prune state machine
transition.
- If the downstream Join/Prune event was on an AC port, then
send the upstream Join/Prune message to all PWs in
UpstreamPorts(G). Send the Join/Prune message to Rport(N)
also.
- If the downstream Join/Prune event was on a PW port and if
Rport(N) is a PW, then silently discard the Join/Prune
[Page 18]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
message without sending it. If Rport(N) is an AC, then send
the Join/Prune message on that AC.
The source IP address in PIM packets sent upstream SHOULD be the
address of a PIM neighbor in the VPLS. The address picked MUST NOT be
the upstream neighbor field to be encoded in the packet. The layer 2
encapsulation for the selected source IP address MUST be the
encapsulation recorded in the PIM Neighbor database for that IP
address.
3.3.9. Triggering ASSERT Election in PIM-SM
In PIM-SM, there are scenarios where multiple routers could be
forwarding the same multicast traffic on a LAN. When this happens,
using PIM Assert Election process by sending PIM Assert Messages,
routers ensure that only the Assert Winner forwards traffic on the
LAN. In a typical LAN, the Assert Election is a data driven event and
happens only if a router sees traffic on the interface to which it
should be forwarding the traffic. Therefore, in the case of VPLS, in
order to trigger Assert Election and stop duplicate traffic, it is
necessary that two routers that are forwarding duplicate traffic for
an (S,G)/(*,G) see each other's traffic.
PIM Snooping switches must hence ensure that they not only forward
multicast traffic for an (S,G) on the ports on which they snooped
Joins(S,G)/Joins(*,G), but also on the ports on which such Joins were
forwarded (i.e. towards the upstream neighbor(s)). Traffic should not
be forwarded on the port on which it was received. So if two or more
Joins(S,G) each carrying a different upstream neighbor field were
snooped at a PE, then the ports on which such Joins were snooped
along with the ports on which the upstream neighbors were learnt must
be added to the outgoing port list.
VPLS Split Horizon Rules dictate that traffic arriving on a PW MUST
NOT be forwarded onto other PW(s). Let us consider the example in
Figure 3: So at a downstream PE (say PE1), if a Join(S,G) with
Upstream Neighbor N1 was sent on one PW (say PW12) and another
Join(S,G) with Upstream Neighbor N2 was sent on another PW (say
PW13), then duplicate traffic will arrive on both PW12 and PW13. Due
to VPLS Split Horizon Rules, traffic from PW12 cannot be forwarded
onto PW13 and vice-versa. However, as long as the upstream PEs (PE2
and PE3) also snoop on the Joins/Prunes, then per the rules in the
previous paragraph, they will add the PW towards both upstream
neighbors N1 and N2 to the outgoing port list.
[Page 19]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Let us consider the scenario in Figure 3.
Figure 3: An Example Scenario for Triggering Assert
+------+ AC3 +------+
| PE2 |-----| CE3 |
/| | | |
/ +------+ +------+
/ | |
/ | |
/PW12 | |
/ | +-----+
/ |PW23 | S |
/ | +-----+
/ | |
/ | |
/ | |
+------+ +------+ / +------+ +------+
| CE1 | | PE1 |/ PW13 | PE3 | | CE4 |
| |-----| |-------------| |-----| |
+------+ AC1 +------+ +------+ AC4 +------+
|
|AC2
+------+
| CE2 |
| |
+------+
In the scenario depicted in Figure 3, both CE1 and CE2 have two ECMP
routes to reach the source "S". Hence, CE1 may pick CE3 as its next
hop ("Upstream Neighbor"), and CE2 may pick CE4 as its next hop. As
a result, both CE1 and CE2 will receive duplicate traffic for a
moment. If Assert procedures are not invoked by CE3 and CE4, the
duplicate traffic on the LAN will persist forever. Following is the
sequence of events that illustrates how duplicate traffic is
resolved. Note that this illustration assumes PIM Snooping in the
VPLS with Join Suppression disabled on the CEs. Procedures for PIM
Proxy are slightly different and will be covered in section 3.6.
1. CE1 sends a Join(S,G) with N=CE3.
2. When PE1 snoops on the Join(S,G), it adds CE3 to its
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also adds AC1 and PW12 to its
OutgoingPortList(S,G). UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) on PE1 =
{CE3}. OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE1 = {AC1, PW12}.
3. PE1 floods the Join(S,G) in the VPLS. If using LDP (as
explained in [VPLS-MCAST-LDP]), PE1 also sends the Join(S,G)
via LDP on PW12 (the PW towards UpstreamNeighbors(S,G)).
[Page 20]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
4. When PE2 receives the Join(S,G), it adds CE3 to its
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) and it also adds PW12 and AC3 to its
OutgoingPortList(S,G). UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) on PE2 =
{CE3}. OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE2 = {PW12, AC3}.
The above is all that needs to occur in most cases where there is no
assert.
5. CE2 sends a Join(S,G) with N=CE4.
6. This results in PE1 adding CE4 to its
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also adds AC2 and PW13 to its
OutgoingPortList(S,G). UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) at PE1 =
{CE3, CE4}. OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE2 = {AC1, AC2, PW12,
PW13}.
7. PE1 floods the join in the VPLS. If using LDP, since the
Join was received on an AC AND since a neighbor was added
to UpstreamNeighbors(S,G), it sends a Join(S,G) via LDP on
the PWs towards UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) {PW12, PW13}.
8. PE2 receives the Join(S,G) and adds CE4 to
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also adds PW23 to its
OutgoingPortList(S,G). UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = {CE3, CE4}.
OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE2 = {PW12, AC3, PW23}.
9. PE3 receives the Join(S,G) too. It adds CE4 to its
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). And it adds PW13 and AC4 to its
OutgoingPortList(S,G). UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = {CE4}.
OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE3 = {PW13, AC4}.
So even before duplicate traffic starts flowing, the Outgoing
interface list on the PEs are (i.e., the forwarding plane):
PE1: {AC1, AC2, PW12, PW13}
PE2: {PW12, AC3, PW23}
PE3: {PW13, AC4}
By building such a forwarding state when Joins are processed, there
needs to be no additional action taken by the PEs when duplicate
traffic is received. Traffic arriving from CE3 will be forwarded to
CE4 thus allowing for CE3 and CE4 to transparently trigger assert
election. This makes the PIM Snooping completely a control-plane
protocol without any data-plane interaction. When the assert election
is complete, if CE3 becomes the assert winner, then
10. CE2 sends a Prune(S,G) with N=CE4 and a Join(S,G) with
N=CE3.
11. When PE1 snoops the Prune(S,G), it removes CE4 from its
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also removes AC2 and PW13 from
the OutgoingPortList(S,G). The Join(S,G) will result in AC2
added back to OutgoingPortList(S,G). OutgoingPortList(S,G)
on PE1 = {AC1, AC2, PW12}.
12. PE1 floods the messages in the VPLS. If LDP is used,
since the Prune was received on an AC and since a neighbor
was removed from UpstreamNeighbors(S,G), the Prune(S,G)
[Page 21]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
will be sent on the PWs towards UpstreamNeighbors(S,G)
{PW12, PW13}. The Join(S,G) need not be sent to {PW12}
since the CE3 was already in UpstreamNeighbors(S,G).
13. PE2 receives the Prune directed to CE4. As a result, PE2
removes CE4 from its UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also
removes PW23 from its OutgoingPortList(S,G).
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) on PE2 = {CE3}.
OutgoingPortList(S,G) on PE2 = {PW12, AC3}.
14. PE3 receives the Prune too. As a result, PE3 removes CE4
from its UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). It also removes PW13 and
AC4 from its OutgoingPortList(S,G). So, PE3 purges state
for that (S,G).
After assert election, the forwarding state should be:
PE1: {AC1, PW12}
PE2: {PW12, AC2}
PE3: {}
Other more complex duplicate traffic scenarios can exist due to the
existence of (S,G) and/or (*,G) states and/or IGMP receiver states in
a VPLS. The inheritance rules in PIM-SM and the rules specified in
this draft should ensure that assert is triggered among the CEs in
all scenarios.
3.4. Bidirectional-PIM (PIM-BIDIR)
PIM-BIDIR is a variation of PIM-SM. The main differences between
PIM-SM and Bidirectional-PIM are as follows:
- There are no source-based trees, and source-specific
multicast is not supported (i.e., no (S,G) states) in PIM-
BIDIR.
- Multicast traffic can flow up the shared tree in PIM-BIDIR.
- To avoid forwarding loops, one router on each link is elected
as the Designated Forwarder (DF) for each RP in PIM-BIDIR.
The main advantage of PIM-BIDIR is that it scales well for many-to-
many applications. However, the lack of source-based trees means
that multicast traffic is forced to remain on the shared tree.
The procedures to discover PIM-SM routers in a VPLS instance are as
described in section 3.2. For PIM-BIDIR to work properly, all
routers within the domain must know the address of the RP. During RP
discovery time, PIM routers elect DF per subnet for each RP. The
algorithm to elect the DF is as follows: all PIM neighbors in a
subnet advertise their unicast route to elect the RP and the router
with the best route is elected.
Snooping for PIM-BIDIR is much simpler than it is for PIM-SM. The
complexity resulting from various combinations of (S,G), (*,G), IGMP
[Page 22]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
and assert states makes PIM-SM procedures fairly complex. PIM-BIDIR
has none of those issues since PIM-BIDIR builds only (*,G) states and
all routers on a LAN agree on who the upstream neighbor, i.e. DF(RP)
is. So the snooping procedures for PIM-BIDIR is very much like that
on a PIM-BIDIR router [PIM-BIDIR].
3.4.1. Building PIM-BIDIR Snooping States
The PEs MUST snoop on PIM-BIDIR Join/Prune messages and build states
as described in [PIM-BIDIR]. The PEs SHOULD simply flood all other
PIM packet types. Since there are no special procedures required for
PIM-BIDIR snooping, we simply refer the reader to the [PIM-BIDIR]
draft.
3.5. PIM-DM
The characteristics of PIM-DM is flood and prune behavior. Shortest
path trees are built as a multicast source starts transmitting.
The procedures to discover PIM-DM routers are as explained in section
3.2.
3.5.1. Building PIM-DM Snooping States
PIM-DM Snooping states are built by snooping on the PIM-DM Join,
Prune, Graft and State Refresh messages received on AC/PWs and State-
Refresh Messages sent on AC/PWs. By snooping on these PIM-DM
messages, a PE builds the following states per (S,G,N) where S is the
address of the multicast source, G is the Group address and N is the
upstream neighbor to which Prunes/Grafts are sent by downstream CEs:
Per PIM (S,G,N):
Per Port PIM (S,G,N) Prune State:
- DownstreamPState(S,G,N,Port): One of {"NoInfo" (NI), "Pruned"
(P), "PrunePending" (PP)}
- Prune Pending Timer (PPT)
- Prune Timer (PT)
- Upstream Port (valid if the PIM(S,G,N) Prune State is
"Pruned").
3.5.2. PIM-DM Downstream Per-Port PIM(S,G,N) State Machine
The downstream per-port PIM(S,G,N) state machine is as defined in
section 4.4.2 of [PIM-DM] with a few changes relevant to PIM
Snooping. When reading section 4.4.2 of [PIM-DM] for the purposes of
PIM-Snooping please be aware that the downstream states are built per
[Page 23]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
(S, G, N, Downstream-Port} in PIM-Snooping and not per {Downstream-
Interface, S, G} as in a PIM-DM router. As noted in the previous
section 3.5.1. , the states (DownstreamPState) and timers (PPT and
PT) are per (S,G,N,P).
3.5.3. Triggering ASSERT election in PIM-DM
Since PIM-DM is a flood-and-prune protocol, traffic is flooded to all
routers unless explicitly pruned. Since PIM-DM routers do not prune
on non-RPF interfaces, PEs should typically not receive Prunes on
Rport(RPF-neighbor). So the asserting routers should typically be in
pim_oiflist(S,G). In most cases, assert election should occur
naturally without any special handling since data traffic will be
forwarded to the asserting routers.
However, there are some scenarios where a prune might be received on
a port which is also an upstream port (UP). If we prune the port from
pim_oiflist(S,G), then it would not be possible for the asserting
routers to determine if traffic arrived on their downstream port.
This can be fixed by adding pim_iifs(S,G) to pim_oiflist(S,G) so that
data traffic flows to the UP ports.
3.6. PIM Proxy
As noted earlier in section 2.4. , PIM Snooping will work correctly
only if Join Suppression is disabled in the VPLS. If Join Suppression
is enabled in the VPLS, then PEs MUST do PIM Proxy for VPLS Multicast
to work correctly.
A PIM Proxy switch behaves like a PIM Router by doing most of the
functionality of a PIM Router. The complexity however is much lesser
on a switch since many of the issues that a PIM Router has to deal
with are not relevant on a switch. A PIM Router needs to be able to
build and maintain RP-Sets. They also have to deal with the Register
and Assert State Machines. There are other complexities for a PIM
Router resulting from inter-domain multicast. A PIM Snooping or PIM
Proxy switch can be agnostic of all of this. All that a PIM Proxy
switch cares about is building multicast states using PIM Hellos and
PIM Join/Prune message. As such it's complexity is greatly reduced.
Other than the procedures defined here, the rest of the procedures
that apply to PIM Snooping apply to PIM Proxy as well.
3.6.1. Downstream PIM Proxy behavior
A PIM-SM or PIM-BIDIR Proxy PE is interested in the Hello and
Join/Prune messages. The proposed PIM Proxy solution for PIM-SM and
PIM-BIDIR is to proxy only Join/Prune messages. PIM Proxy for PIM-DM
is for future study.
[Page 24]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
PIM Hellos MUST be snooped while being flooded in the VPLS.
PIM Join/Prune messages arriving at an AC MUST be consumed. If [VPLS-
MCAST-LDP] is not used to distribute multicast states among the PEs,
then PIM Join/Prune messages arriving at a PW MUST also be consumed.
All other PIM packet types are flooded in the VPLS without needing
observation.
Performing only proxy of Join/Prune messages keeps the switch
behavior very similar to that of a PIM router without introducing too
much additional complexity. It keeps the PIM Proxy solution fairly
simple. Since Join/Prunes are forwarded by a PE along the slow-path
and all other PIM packet types are forwarded along the fast-path, it
is very likely that packets forwarded along the fast-path will arrive
"ahead" of Join/Prune packets at a CE router (note the stress on the
fact that fast-path messages will never arrive after Join/Prunes). Of
particular importance are Hello packets sent along the fast-path. We
can construct a variety of scenarios resulting in out of order
delivery of Hellos and Join/Prune messages. However, there should be
no deviation from normal expected behavior observed at the CE router
receiving these messages out of order.
The other option for a PIM Proxy solution is to proxy both Hello and
Join/Prune messages that a PE is interested in building states for.
If Hellos are being proxied, then it becomes necessary that the PE
proxy all other PIM packet types also. Because if Hellos are received
after other packet types are received at a CE router, then bad things
will happen. That means every PIM packet has to be sent along the
slow-path. This greatly increases the complexity on the CE router, it
is very compute intensive and does not scale well. Also, proxying
Hellos will result in added latency to delivery of Hello messages to
a CE and that affects multicast convergence in the VPLS.
3.6.2. Upstream PIM Proxy behavior
Since a PIM Proxy switch consumes Join/Prune messages, it must also
originate PIM Join/Prune messages to be sent upstream. If [VPLS-
MCAST-LDP] is employed, then triggered Join/Prune messages are sent
via LDP to forward PIM Join/Prunes on PWs. Join/Prune messages need
not be refreshed on PWs when [VPLS-MCAST-LDP] is employed. On ACs,
both triggered and refresh Join/Prunes are forwarded as PIM packets.
The source IP address in PIM packets sent upstream SHOULD be the
address of a PIM neighbor in the VPLS. The address picked MUST NOT be
the upstream neighbor field to be encoded in the packet. The layer 2
encapsulation for the selected source IP address MUST be the
encapsulation recorded in the PIM Neighbor database for that IP
address.
[Page 25]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
If Explicit Tracking is disabled in the VPLS, then it does not matter
what Source IP Address is picked in the packets sent upstream as long
as we adhere to the rule in the previous paragraph. However, if
Explicit Tracking is enabled in the VPLS, then we cannot do this. In
fact, it would be wrong to even enable PIM Proxy in the VPLS since
the CE routers may wish to receive the Join/Prunes from every
interested CE router. If a PE determines that Explicit Tracking is
enabled in the VPLS, it MUST disable PIM Proxy and SHOULD follow PIM
Snooping procedures instead.
3.7. Directly Connected Multicast Source
If there is a source in the CE network that connects directly into
the VPLS instance, then multicast traffic from that source MUST be
sent to all PIM routers on the VPLS instance apart from the igmp
receivers in the VPLS. If there is already (S,G) or (*,G) snooping
state that is formed on any PE, this will not happen per the current
forwarding rules and guidelines. So, in order to determine if
traffic needs to be flooded to all routers, a PE must be able to
determine if the traffic came from a host on that LAN. There are
three ways to address this problem:
- The PE would have to do ARP snooping to determine if a source
is directly connected.
- Another option is to have configuration on all PEs to say
there are CE sources that are directly connected to the VPLS
instance and disallow snooping for the groups for which the
source is going to send traffic. This way traffic from that
source to those groups will always be flooded within the
provider network.
- A third option is to require that sources of CE multicast
routers must appear behind a router.
3.8. Data Forwarding Rules
First we define the rules that are common to PIM-SM, PIM-BIDIR and
PIM-DM PEs. Forwarding rules for each protocol type is specified in
the sub-sections.
If there is no matching forwarding state, then the PE MAY either
discard the packet or send it towards all the snooped PIM CE routers
or to a configured set of ports. How this is determined is outside
the scope of this document.
The following rules MUST be followed when forwarding multicast
traffic in a VPLS:
- Traffic arriving on a port MUST NOT be forwarded back onto
the same port.
[Page 26]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
- Due to VPLS Split-Horizon rules, traffic ingressing on a PW
MUST NOT be forwarded to any other PW.
3.8.1. PIM-SM Data Forwarding Rules
Per the rules in [PIM-SM] and per the additional rules specified in
this document,
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = inherited_olist(*,G) (+) UpstreamPorts(G)
(+) Rport(PimDR)
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = inherited_olist(S,G) (+) UpstreamPorts(G)
(+) Rport(PimDR)
[PIM-SM] specifies how inherited_olist(*,G) and inherited_olist(S,G)
are built. PimDR is the IP address of the PIM DR in the VPLS.
The PIM-SM Snooping forwarding rules are defined below in pseudocode:
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
S is the Source IP Address of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is (S,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList(S,G)
Else if there is (*,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList(*,G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
First if there is (S,G) state on the PE, then the set of outgoing
ports is OutgoingPortList(S,G).
Otherwise if there is (*,G) state on the PE, the set of outgoing
ports is OutgoingPortList(*,G).
[Page 27]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
The packet is forwarded to the selected set of outgoing ports while
observing the rules above in section 3.8.
3.8.2. PIM-BIDIR Data Forwarding Rules
The PIM-BIDIR Snooping forwarding rules are defined below in
pseudocode:
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is forwarding state for G
Then
OutgoingPortList = olist(G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
If there is forwarding state for G, then forward the packet to
olist(G) while observing the rules above in section 3.8.
[PIM-BIDIR] specifies how olist(G) is contructed.
3.8.3. PIM-DM Data Forwarding Rules
The PIM-DM Snooping data forwarding rules are defined below in
pseudocode:
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
S is the Source IP Address of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is (S,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = olist(S,G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
[Page 28]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
If there is forwarding state for (S,G), then forward the packet to
olist(S,G) while observing the rules above in section 3.8.
[PIM-DM] specifies how olist(S,G) is contructed.
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA assignments or action.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations provided in VPLS solution documents (i.e.,
[VPLS-LDP] and [VPLS-BGP) apply to this document as well.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[PIM-DM] Deering, S., et al. "Protocol Independent Multicast
Version 2 - Dense Mode Specification", RFC 3973,
January 2005.
[PIM-SM] Fenner, W, et al. "Protocol Independent Multicast-
Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt, April
2005.
[PIM-SSM] Holbrook, H., et al. "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", work in progress
[PIM-BIDIR] Handley, M., et al. "Bi-directional Protocol
Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", work in
progress
[PIM-JOIN-ATTR] Boers, A, et al, "Format for using TLVs in PIM
messages", draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-01.txt,
Work in progress
[Page 29]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
6.2. Informative References
[VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M, et al. "Virtual Private LAN Services
over MPLS", work in progress
[VPLS-BGP] Kompella, K, et al. "Virtual Private LAN Service",
work in progress
[IGMP-SNOOP] Christensen, M., et al. "Considerations for IGMP
and MLD Snooping Switches", work in progress
[VPLS-MCAST-LDP] Qui, R, Serbest, Y, et al, "Using LDP for VPLS
Multicast", draft-qiu-serbest-vpls-mcast-ldp-00.txt,
Work in progress
[VPLS-MCAST-BGP] Aggarwal, R, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP
Multicast Group Membership Information", draft-
raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, Work in
progress
[VPLS-MCAST-TREES] Aggarwal, R, et al. "Multicast in VPLS",
draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt,
Work in progress.
Authors' Addresses
Venu Hemige
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Venu.hemige@alcatel.com
Yetik Serbest
SBC Labs
9505 Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
Yetik_serbest@labs.sbc.com
Ray Qiu
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Ray.Qiu@alcatel.com
Suresh Boddapati
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Suresh.boddapati@alcatel.com
Rob Nath
Riverstone Networks
5200 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Rnath@riverstonenet.com
[Page 30]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
Sunil Khandekar
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Sunil.khandekar@alcatel.com
Vach Kompella
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Vach.kompella@alcatel.com
Marc Lasserre
Riverstone Networks
Marc@riverstonenet.com
Himanshu Shah
Ciena
hshah@ciena.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Full copyright statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
[Page 31]
Draft draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Nov, 2005
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
[Page 32]
