One document matched: draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-mcast-bcp-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-mcast-bcp-00.txt
Internet Draft B. Nickless
Document: draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-mcast-bcp- Argonne National
01.txt Laboratory
Expires: December 2003 June 2003
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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
This document describes best current practices for IPv4 multicast
deployment, both within and between PIM Domains and Autonomous
Systems.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
Conventions used in this document..................................2
Scope..............................................................2
Introduction and Terminology.......................................2
Packet Forwarding..................................................3
Any Source Multicast...............................................3
Source Specific Multicast..........................................4
Multiprotocol BGP..................................................4
PIM Sparse Mode....................................................5
Internet Group Management Protocol.................................6
Multicast Source Discovery Protocol................................6
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 1
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
Model IPv4 Multicast-Capable BGPv4 Configuration...................7
Model IPv4 Multicast Inter-domain PIM Sparse Mode Configuration....7
Model PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point Location....................8
Model MSDP Configuration Between Autonomous Systems................9
Advanced Configurations............................................9
Security Considerations...........................................10
Acknowledgements..................................................10
Normative References..............................................10
Non-Normative References..........................................11
Author's Address..................................................12
Overview
Current best practice for IPv4 multicast service provision uses four
different protocols: Internet Group Management Protcol, Protocol
Independent Multicast (Sparse Mode), Border Gateway Protocol with
multiprotocol extensions, and the Multicast Source Discovery
Protocol. This document outlines how these protocols work together
to provide end-to-end IPv4 multicast service. In addition, this
document describes best current practices for configuring these
protocols, individually and in combination.
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 [RFC2119].
Scope
This document is intended to provide basic information on how IPv4
Multicast routing is accomplished. It discusses the IPv4 Multicast
Service model based in IGMP; how PIM Sparse Mode is used to route
traffic within an Autonomous System; and how the Multiprotocol
extensions to BGPv4, PIM Sparse Mode, and the Multicast Source
Discovery Protocol are used to route traffic between Autonomous
Systems. Pointers to more sophisticated uses of these protocols are
provided.
Introduction and Terminology
IPv4 multicast [MCAST] is an internetwork service that allows IPv4
datagrams sent from a source to be delivered to one or more
interested receiver(s). That is, a given source sends a packet to
the network with a destination address in the 224.0.0.0/4 CIDR
[CIDR] range. The network transports this packet to all receivers
(replicated where necessary) that have registered their interest in
receiving these packets. The set of interested receivers is known
as a Host Group [RFC966].
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 2
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
The letter S is used to represent the IPv4 address of a given
source. The letter G is used to represent a given IPv4 group
address (within the 224/4 CIDR range). A packet, or series of
packets, sent by a sender with a given address S to a given Host
Group G is represented as (S,G). A set of packets sent to Host
Group G by multiple senders is represented as (*,G).
Packet Forwarding
Routers do multicast packet forwarding. In order to know from where
to accept packets, and where to send them (duplicated if necessary),
each router maintains forwarding state. This forwarding state might
be source specific (S,G) or source-generic/group-specific (*,G).
Each element of forwarding state defines an Input Interface (IIF)
and a set of Output Interfaces, known as an Output Interface List
(OIL).
When a packet is received on an IIF, the router performs a Reverse
Path Forwarding (RPF) check on that packet. If that RPF check
succeeds, the packet is forwarded to the interfaces in the OIL.
The forwarding state in each router is a node on a singly rooted
tree. In the case of shared trees using (*,G) forwarding state, the
root of the tree is the PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point. In the
case of source-specific trees using (S,G) forwarding state, the root
of the tree is the PIM Designated Router for the source S sending to
group G.
Any Source Multicast
Any Source Multicast (ASM) is the traditional IPv4 multicast [MCAST]
model. IPv4 multicast sources send IPv4 datagrams to the network,
with the destination address of each IPv4 datagram set to a specific
ôgroupö address in the Class D address space (224/4). IPv4
multicast receivers register their interest in packets addressed to
a group address, and the internetwork delivers packets from all
sources in the internetwork to the interested receivers.
It is the responsibility of the internetwork to keep track of all
the sources transmitting to a particular group (identified by the
group address). When a receiver wishes traffic sent to a group the
network forwards traffic from all group sources.
There is no requirement that a source be a member of the destination
Host Group. In terms of [RFC966], IPv4 ASM groups are ôopenö.
IPv4 multicast receivers register their interest in packets sent to
group addresses through the Internet Group Management Protocol
Version 2 (IGMPv2) [IGMPV2]. IGMPv2 does not have any facility for
receivers to specify which sources the receiver wants to receive
from. That is, IGMPv2 only allows (*,G) registrations.
The Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [IGMPV3]
can also be used in Any Source Multicast mode.
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 3
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
Source Specific Multicast
Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM] is another IPv4 multicast
model. IPv4 multicast sources send IPv4 datagrams to the network,
with the destination address of each IPv4 datagram set to a specific
ôgroupö address in the Class D address space (224/4). IPv4
multicast receivers register their interest in packets from a
specific source that have been addressed to a group address, and the
internetwork delivers packets from that source to the interested
receivers.
It is the responsibility of each receiver to specify which sources,
sending to which groups, the receiver wishes to receive datagrams
from.
IPv4 multicast receivers register their interest in packets sent by
specific sources to group addresses through IGMPv3. That is, IGMPv3
supports (S,G) registrations.
Sources that send packets to group addresses in the 232/8 range (the
SSM-specific range) can only be received by IGMPv3/SSM speaking
receivers and networks.
Multiprotocol BGP
The topology of inter-domain IPv4 multicast forwarding is determined
by BGPv4 [BGPV4] policy, as is IPv4 unicast forwarding. BGP
provides reachability information. Reachability information for
IPv4 Unicast and IPv4 Multicast prefixes can be advertised
separately. (See [MBGP] for details and the definition of Network
Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and Subsequent Address Family
Information (SAFI).) The practical definition of reachability is
different for IPv4 unicast (NLRI=unicast, SAFI=1) and IPv4 multicast
(NLRI=Multicast, SAFI=2).
In current practice for BGP unicast advertisements (NLRI=Unicast,
SAFI=1), reachability is interpreted to mean that IPv4 datagrams
will be forwarded towards their destination host if sent to the
NEXT_HOP address in the advertisement.
In the case of BGP multicast advertisements (NLRI=Multicast,
SAFI=2), reachability is interpreted to mean two things
simultaneously:
First, IPv4 datagrams can be requested from sources within the
advertised prefix range. Such requests are made to the advertised
NEXT_HOP by means of the PIM Sparse Mode [PIM-SM] protocol, or
(rarely) any other mutually agreed upon protocol that supports (S,G)
requests.
Second, the MSDP [MSDP] speaker associated with the NEXT_HOP address
will provide MSDP Source Active messages from PIM Rendevous Points
within the advertised prefix range.
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 4
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
These two interpretations of BGP NLRI=Multicast flow from the use of
BGP to replace the topology discovery portion of the Distance Vector
Multicast Routing Protocol [DVMRP]. DVMRP is a ôdenseö routing
protocol, which means traffic is flooded outwards from the sources
to all possible receivers. In this situation, an IPv4 multicast
router has to decide which incoming interface may accept IPv4
datagrams from a given source (to avoid forwarding loops). When the
switch was made to use a ôsparseö forwarding model (requiring
specific (S,G) requests for traffic to flow) both interpretations of
BGP NLRI=Multicast became necessary for interoperability with the
DVMRP-based model.
Note that while MSDP is not strictly necessary for Autonomous
Systems that only support Source Specific Multicast [SSM], MSDP
depends on the latter interpretation of BGP NLRI=Multicast to avoid
MSDP SA forwarding loops. There is a real danger of causing MSDP SA
forwarding ôblack holesö unless MSDP peerings are set up at the same
time as BGP NLRI=Multicast peerings.
Some MBGP implementations also support combined multicast and
unicast advertisements (SAFI=3). Current practice is to interpret
these advertisements to include all three meanings listed above:
unicast forwarding, availability of traffic from multicast sources,
and MSDP Source Active availability.
PIM Sparse Mode
The PIM Sparse Mode protocol [PIM-SM] is widely used to create
forwarding state from IPv4 multicast sources to interested
receivers.
The term ôPIM Sparse Mode domainö generally refers to the hosts and
routers that share a PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point.
In current practice, there is generally one PIM Sparse Mode domain
per Autonomous System. Some Autonomous Systems choose to have
multiple PIM Sparse Mode domains for scalability and reliability
reasons.
Within a PIM Sparse Mode domain, the standard PIM Sparse Mode
mechanisms are used to build shared forwarding trees. Interested
IPv4 multicast receivers make their group interest known through the
Internet Group Management Protocol, and the associated PIM
Designated Router (DR) sends (*,G) PIM Join messages towards the RP
to build the appropriate shared forwarding tree. IPv4 multicast
sources are registered with the PIM Rendezvous Point (RP). When
enough traffic from a given source is flowing down the shared tree,
PIM routers will create and join source-specific (S,G) trees rooted
at the source. This is known as the SPT Threshold.
Best current practice is to configure routers to join the source-
rooted tree on the first packet sent down the shared tree. That is,
the SPT Threshold should be zero.
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 5
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
In the ASM model, PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Points have to co-
operate in order to discover active sources and set up forwarding
trees. MSDP is used to spread the knowledge of active sources
within a multicast group. Source-specific (S,G) joins are used to
set up forwarding from sources towards the interested receivers. No
inter-PIM-domain shared forwarding tree is created.
In the SSM model, there is no need for PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous
Points because each receiver explicitly identifies the sources from
which it desires traffic. Thus, the local PIM Designated Router
that receives an IGMPv3 request for traffic can initiate the PIM-
Sparse Mode source-specific (S,G) requests directly towards the
source. Packets sent to group addresses within the 232.0.0.0/8
range SHOULD NOT be encapsulated into PIM Register messages and
forwarded to the PIM Rendezvous Point.
Internet Group Management Protocol
The Internet Group Management Protocol was designed to be used by
hosts to notify the network that the hosts want to receive traffic
on an IPv4 multicast group.
The IGMP design originally assumed a shared media network like
Ethernet. When IEEE 802.1 bridging (layer 2) switches became
available, many vendors built in IGMP ôsnoopingö so as to avoid
flooding IP multicast traffic to all ports.
There are two alternative best current practices for IPv4 multicast
deployment in a network that has many IEEE 802 segments. Both
practices are intended to constrain unwanted flooding of multicast
traffic to segments that have no intended receivers. One is to use
nominally IEEE 802.1 bridges enhanced with IGMP snooping. Another
is to avoid IEEE 802.1 bridges altogether, in favor of small subnets
and multicast-aware IP routers.
IGMPv2 [IGMPV2] supports the ASM model. IGMPv3 [IGMPV3] supports
the ASM model as well as the SSM model.
Some wide area network access servers support IGMP and IPv4
Multicast over PPP connections. Host implementations also support
the IGMP over PPP connections, even those that use dial-up modems.
Such support contributes to the availability and utility of IPv4
multicast service, but only when configured by network operators.
Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) supports the Any
Source Multicast model. It SHOULD NOT be used in a Source Specific
Multicast context.
Current best practice is for Autonomous Systems to ask each other
for traffic from specific sources transmitting to specific groups.
It follows that inter-AS IP multicast forwarding trees are all
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 6
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
source-specific. Thus, when a receiver registers an interest in
datagrams addressed to a multicast group G (generally through an
IGMPv2 (*,G) join) it is necessary for the associated PIM Sparse
Mode Rendezvous Point (or other intra-AS protocol element, such as a
Core Based Trees [CBT] Core Router) to arrange (S,G) joins towards
each sender. Each inter-AS (S,G) join creates a branch of the
forwarding tree towards the sender.
The Multicast Source Discovery Protocol [MSDP] is used to
communicate the availability of sources between Autonomous Systems.
MSDP-speaking PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Points (or other designated
MSDP speakers with knowledge of all sources within an Autonomous
System) flood knowledge of active sources to each other.
MSDP-speaking RPs communicate by way of a TCP session. The Source
Active messages transmitted over the TCP session contain a packet of
data, which the MSDP-speaking RPs can forward down their group-
specific shared trees. This is how PIM speakers within a PIM domain
learn of the external sources.
Generally, with the SPT Threshold set to zero, PIM speakers within
the domain will then join the source-rooted distribution tree.
Thus, the persistent packet flow may bypass the RP altogether.
Model IPv4 Multicast-Capable BGPv4 Configuration
IPv4 multicast reachability is communicated between Autonomous
Systems by BGPv4 prefix announcements. That is, prefixes are
advertised with NLRI=Multicast (SAFI in {2,3}). As outlined above,
the semantics of a BGPv4 advertisement of an IPv4 NLRI=Multicast
prefix are currently interpreted to mean two things:
First, such an advertisement means that the router with the NEXT_HOP
address of that advertisement will supply packets from any
transmitting source S whose address matches the prefix advertised.
In order to fulfill this expectation, any two BGPv4 speakers that
communicate NLRI=Multicast advertisements must be able to ask each
other for (S,G) traffic. That is, they must have some protocol
(most often PIM Sparse Mode) configured between them.
Second, such an advertisement means that the router with the
NEXT_HOP address of that advertisement will supply MSDP Source
Active messages from any (e.g.) PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point
whose address matches the prefix advertised. To avoid MSDP ôblack
holesö, Autonomous Systems with BGPv4 speakers that exchange
NLRI=Multicast advertisements must also have appropriate MSDP
peerings configured.
Model IPv4 Multicast Inter-domain PIM Sparse Mode Configuration
As outlined above, current practice is that each IPv4 BGPv4
NLRI=Multicast capable peering is capable of making (S,G) requests
for traffic. Autonomous Systems predominantly use PIM Sparse Mode
for this purpose. The rest of this section describes how PIM Sparse
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 7
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
Mode is widely configured, but the principles can be applied to any
other (S,G) request protocol between Autonomous Systems.
The minimum TTL Threshold for traffic crossing an Autonomous System
peering is generally set to be 32. This value follows earlier
practice [FAQ] that sets inter-institution TTL barriers at 16-32.
It also provides a reasonable number of values both above and below
the (maximum 255) barrier.
The PIM Sparse Mode Adjacency should not make requests for traffic
across the peering for sources in these groups:
224.0.1.39/32: CiscoÆs Rendezvous Point Announcement Protocol
224.0.1.40/32: CiscoÆs Rendezvous Point Discovery Protocol
239.0.0.0/8: Administratively Scoped IPv4 Group Addresses (with
possible exceptions)
The first two groups are used to determine where PIM Sparse Mode
Rendezvous Points can be found within an Autonomous System. The
latter group range is defined by RFC 2365 [RFC2365]. RFC 2365 has
been generally interpreted to equate ôorganizationsö (see section
6.2) with Autonomous Systems. Some Autonomous Systems choose to
interpret this differently.
Model PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point Location
In order to participate in current-practice inter-Autonomous System
IPv4 multicast routing, a PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point (or other
such MSDP-speaker) should have access to the full BGP NLRI=Multicast
reachability table so as to arrange for (S,G) joins to the
appropriate external peer networks. This need arises when a (*,G)
request comes in from a host. Access to the BGPv4 NLRI=Multicast
reachability table is also important so that the (e.g.) PIM Sparse
Mode Rendezvous Point will perform MSDP Reverse-Path-Forwarding
(RPF) checks correctly.
PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Points are often located at the border
router of an Autonomous System where the BGPv4 NLRI=Multicast
reachability table is already maintained. If necessary, an MSDP
Mesh Group can be created if there are multiple BGPv4 NLRI=Multicast
speakers within an Autonomous System. (See Section 14.3 of [MSDP]
as well as [ANYCASTRP].)
The IPv4 address of each PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point (or other
such MSDP-speaker) must be chosen so that it is within an advertised
BGPv4 NLRI=Multicast prefix. The MSDP RPF checks operate on the so-
called ôRP-Addressö within the MSDP Source Active message, not the
advertised source S. In the most widely deployed case, the RP-
Address is set by the MSDP-speaker to be the PIM Sparse Mode
Rendezvous Point address.
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 8
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
Model MSDP Configuration Between Autonomous Systems
MSDP peerings are configured between Autonomous Systems. These
peerings are statically defined. Thus, in practice, such MSDP-
speaking (e.g.) PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Point(s) must be ôtied
downö to known addresses and routers for the inter-AS peerings to
operate correctly.
The so-called ôRP-addressö in MSDP Source Active messages must be
addressed within prefixes announced by BGPv4 NLRI=Multicast
advertisements. (Otherwise the RP-Address Reverse Path Forwarding
checks done by peer MSDP-speaking Autonomous Systems will fail, and
the MSDP Source Active messages will be discarded.) The most common
RP-address in MSDP Source Active messages is the PIM Rendezvous
Point IPv4 address.
In practice, MSDP speakers are configured to not advertise sources
to external peers that are operating in certain groups, as outlined
in [UNUSABLE]. Also see [FILTERLIST] for more information. Some
sites block all groups in 224.0.0.0/24, due to a lack of interdomain
groups in that range.
MSDP speakers are configured to not accept or advertise sources to
or from external peers with Private Internet addresses [RFC1918].
MSDP-speakers are configured, wherever possible, to only advertise
sources within prefixes that they are advertising as BGPv4
NLRI=Multicast (SAFI in {2,3}) announcements. That is, a non-
transit Autonomous System would only advertise sources within the
prefixes it advertises to its peers.
Based on recent events, MSDP peerings are configured with reasonable
rate limits to dampen explosions of MSDP SA advertisements. These
explosions can occur when malicious software generates packets
addressed to many IPv4 multicast groups in a very short period of
time. What ôappropriateö means for these rate limits will vary over
time with the number of active IPv4 multicast sources in the
Internet. To determine an initial approximation for these rate
limits, configure MSDP without rate limits initially, and then set
the rate limits at some small multiple of the observed steady state
rate. Another approach would be to set rate limits based on a small
multiple of the current number of active sources in the Internet.
The Mantra Project [MANTRA] maintains MSDP statistics, as well as
other IPv4 multicast statistics.
Advanced Configurations
Often an organization may wish to have multiple PIM RPs for
scalability reasons. The Anycast-RP [ANYCASTRP] draft outlines one
way how this can be accomplished.
When an organization has multiple border routers, it makes sense for
the organization to move the PIM Rendezvous Point off of the border
and to an internal router. Note that the MSDP-speaking PIM RP will
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 9
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
need to be a part of the iBGP mesh so as to have BGPv4
NLRI=Multicast topology information.
Security Considerations
Autonomous Systems often configure router filters or firewall rules
to discard mis-forwarded IPv4 datagrams. Such rules may explicitly
list the IPv4 address ranges that are acceptable for incoming IPv4
datagrams. When IPv4 multicast is enabled, these rules need to be
updated to disallow incoming IPv4 datagrams with addresses in the
239/8 CIDR range, but otherwise to allow incoming IPv4 datagrams
with destination addresses in the 224/4 CIDR range.
PIM Sparse Mode Rendezvous Points are particularly vulnerable to
Denial of Service attacks. As outlined above, it is important to
put rate limits on MSDP peerings so as to protect your PIM Sparse
Mode Rendezvous Points from explosions in the size of the cached
MSDP Source Active table. Other denial of service attacks include
sending excessive Register-encapsulated packets towards the
Rendezvous Point and flooding the Rendezvous Point with large
numbers of (S,G) joins originated as IGMP Group Reports.
Acknowledgements
Dino Farinacci created the (S,G) notation used throughout this
document.
Kevin Almeroth, Tony Ballardie, H…vard Eidnes, David Farmer, Leonard
Giuliano, John Heasley, Marty Hoag, Milan J, Simon Leinen, Michael
Luby, David Meyer, John Meylor, Stephen Sprunk and Dave Thaler
provided information, pointed out mistakes and made suggestions for
improvement.
Marshall Eubanks described the vulnerability of PIM Sparse Mode
Rendezvous Points to various denial of service attacks.
This work was supported by the Mathematical, Information, and
Computational Sciences Division subprogram of the Office of Advanced
Scientific Computing Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under
Contract W-31-109-Eng-38.
Normative References
[RFC2119] RFC 2119: Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels. S. Bradner. March 1997.
[MCAST] RFC 1112: Host extensions for IP multicasting. S.E. Deering.
August 1989.
[CIDR] RFC 1519: Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy. V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K.
Varadhan. September 1993.
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 10
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
[RFC966] RFC 966: Host Groups: A Multicast Extension to the Internet
Protocol. S. E. Deering, D. R. Cheriton. December 1985.
[IGMPV2] RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2. W.
Fenner. November 1997.
[IGMPV3] RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3.
B. Cain, S. Deering, B. Fenner, I Kouvelas, A. Thyagarajan.
October 2002.
[SSM] draft-ietf-ssm-arch-00.txt: Source-Specific Multicast for IP.
H. Holbrook, B. Cain. 21 November 2001.
[BGPV4] RFC 1771: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4). Y. Rekhter,
T. Li. March 1995.
[MBGP] RFC 2858: Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. T. Bates, Y.
Rekhter, R. Chandra, D. Katz. June 2000.
[PIM-SM] RFC 2117: Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-
SM): Protocol Specification. D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy,
D. Thaler, S. Deering, M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P.
Sharma, L. Wei. June 1997.
[MSDP] draft-ietf-msdp-spec-13.txt: Multicast Source Discovery
Protocol (MSDP). D. Meyer (Editor), B. Fenner (Editor).
November 2001.
[RFC2365] RFC 2365: Administratively Scoped IP Multicast. D. Meyer.
July 1998.
[UNUSABLE] IPv4 Multicast Unusable Group Addresses. B. Nickless.
draft-nickless-ipv4-mcast-unusable-02.txt. June 2003.
[RFC1918] RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Internets. Y.
Rekhter, B. Moskowitz, D. Karrenberk, G. J. de Groot, E. Lear.
February 1996.
[ANYCASTRP] RFC 3446: Anycast RP mechanism using PIM and MSDP. D.
Kim, D. Meyer, H. Kilmer, D. Farinacci. January 2003.
Non-Normative References
[DVMRP] RFC 1075: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol. D.
Waitzman, C. Partridge, S.E. Deering. November 1988.
[FAQ] http://netlab.gmu.edu/mbone_installation.htm
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 11
IPv4 Multicast Best Current Practice June 2003
[FILTERLIST] ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ipmulticast/config-notes/msdp-
sa-filter.txt
[MANTRA] http://www.caida.org/tools/measurement/mantra
Author's Address
Bill Nickless
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue #221 Phone: +1 630 252 7390
Argonne, IL 60439 Email: nickless@mcs.anl.gov
Nickless Informational - Expires December 2003 12 | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 13:07:05 |