One document matched: draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt
Differences from draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt
INTERNET DRAFT Y. Serbest
Internet Engineering Task Force SBC
Document: Ray Qiu
draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt Venu Hemige
February 2005 Alcatel
Category: Informational Rob Nath
Expires: August 2005 Riverstone
Supporting IP Multicast over VPLS
Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, we represent that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be
disclosed in accordance with RFC 3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
Sections 5 and 6 of RFC 3667 and Section 5 of RFC 3668.
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), the PE devices provide a
logical interconnect such that CE devices belonging to a specific
VPLS instance appear to be connected by a single LAN. A VPLS
solution performs 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,
and 2. Pseudo wires to different sites go through a shared path.
This document is addressing the former by IGMP and 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.
[Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Table of Contents
1 Contributing Authors..............................................3
2 Introduction......................................................3
3 Overview of VPLS..................................................4
4 Multicast Traffic over VPLS.......................................4
5 Constraining of IP Multicast in a VPLS............................5
5.1 IPv6 Considerations............................................6
5.2 General Rules for IGMP/PIM Snooping in VPLS....................7
5.3 IGMP Snooping for VPLS.........................................7
5.3.1 Discovering Multicast Routers.............................8
5.3.2 IGMP Snooping Protocol State..............................8
5.3.3 IGMP Join.................................................9
5.3.4 IGMP Leave...............................................13
5.3.5 Failure Scenarios........................................14
5.3.6 Scaling Considerations for IGMP Snooping.................14
5.3.7 Downstream Proxy Behavior................................15
5.3.8 Upstream Proxy Behavior..................................15
5.4 PIM Snooping for VPLS.........................................16
5.4.1 PIM Snooping State Summarization Macros..................16
5.4.2 PIM-DM...................................................18
5.4.2.1 Discovering Multicast Routers............................18
5.4.2.2 PIM-DM Multicast Forwarding..............................19
5.4.2.3 PIM-DM Pruning...........................................20
5.4.2.4 PIM-DM Grafting..........................................21
5.4.2.5 Failure Scenarios........................................22
5.4.3 PIM-SM...................................................22
5.4.3.1 Discovering Multicast Routers............................22
5.4.3.2 PIM-SM (*,G) Join........................................23
5.4.3.3 PIM-SM Pruning...........................................25
5.4.3.4 PIM-SM (S,G) Join........................................26
5.4.3.5 PIM-SM (S,G,rpt) Prunes..................................26
5.4.3.6 PIM-SM (*,*,RP) State....................................26
5.4.3.7 Failure Scenarios........................................27
5.4.3.8 Special Cases for PIM-SM Snooping........................27
5.4.4 PIM-SSM..................................................29
5.4.4.1 Discovering Multicast Routers............................30
5.4.4.2 Guidelines for PIM-SSM Snooping..........................30
5.4.4.3 PIM-SSM Join.............................................31
5.4.4.4 PIM-SSM Prune............................................32
5.4.4.5 Failure Scenarios........................................32
5.4.4.6 Special Cases for PIM-SSM Snooping.......................32
5.4.5 Bidirectional-PIM (BIDIR-PIM)............................32
5.4.5.1 Discovering Multicast Routers............................32
5.4.5.2 Guidelines for BIDIR-PIM Snooping........................33
5.4.5.3 BIDIR-PIM Join...........................................34
5.4.5.4 BIDIR-PIM Prune..........................................35
5.4.5.5 Failure Scenarios........................................35
5.4.6 Multicast Source Directly Connected to the VPLS Instance.35
5.4.7 Data Forwarding Rules....................................36
5.4.8 PIM Snooping at PWs Overwhelm PEs........................36
6 Security Considerations..........................................39
[Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
7 References.......................................................39
7.1 Normative References..........................................39
7.2 Informative References........................................39
8 Authors' Addresses...............................................39
9 Intellectual Property Statement..................................40
10 Full copyright statement......................................41
1 Contributing Authors
This document was the combined effort of several individuals. The
following are the authors, in alphabetical order, who contributed to
this document:
Suresh Boddapati
Venu Hemige
Sunil Khandekar
Vach Kompella
Marc Lasserre
Rob Nath
Ray Qiu
Yetik Serbest
2 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. 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),
- It prevents sending multicast traffic to sites with no members,
- It keeps P routers in the core stateless,
- The Service Provider (SP) does not need to perform the tasks to
provide multicast service (e.g., running PIM, managing P-group
addresses, managing multicast tunnels)
[Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- The SP does not need to maintain PIM adjacencies with the
customers.
In this document, we describe the procedures for Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) and Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
snooping over VPLS for efficient distribution of IP multicast
traffic.
3 Overview of VPLS
In case of VPLS, the PE devices provide a logical interconnect such
that CE devices belonging to a specific VPLS appear to be connected
by a single LAN. End-to-end VPLS consists of a bridge module and a
LAN emulation module ([L2VPN-FR]).
In a VPLS, a customer site receives layer-2 service from the SP. The
PE is attached via an access connection to one or more CEs. The PE
performs forwarding of user data packets based on information in the
layer-2 header, that is, MAC destination address. The CE sees a
bridge.
The details of VPLS reference model, which we summarize here, can be
found in [L2VPN-FR]. In VPLS, the PE can be viewed as containing a
Virtual Switching Instance (VSI) for each L2VPN that it serves. A CE
device attaches, possibly through an access network, to a bridge
module of a PE. Within the PE, the bridge module attaches, through
an Emulated LAN Interface to an Emulated LAN. For each VPLS, there
is an Emulated LAN instance. The Emulated LAN consists of VPLS
Forwarder module (one per PE per VPLS service instance) connected by
pseudo wires (PW), where the PWs may be traveling through Packet
Switched Network (PSN) tunnels over a routed backbone. VSI is a
logical entity that contains a VPLS forwarder module and part of the
bridge module relevant to the VPLS service instance [L2VPN-FR].
Hence, the VSI terminates PWs for interconnection with other VSIs and
also terminates attachment circuits (ACs) for accommodating CEs. A
VSI includes the forwarding information base for a L2VPN [L2VPN-FR]
which is the set of information regarding how to forward layer-2
frames received over the AC from the CE to VSIs in other PEs
supporting the same L2VPN service (and/or to other ACs), and contains
information regarding how to forward layer-2 frames received from PWs
to ACs. Forwarding information bases can be populated dynamically
(such as by source MAC address learning) or statically (e.g., by
configuration). Each PE device is responsible for proper forwarding
of the customer traffic to the appropriate destination(s) based on
the forwarding information base of the corresponding VSI.
4 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
[Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
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 can not know where multicast members reside. Rate limiting
multicast traffic, while possible, 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.
In the following section, we describe procedures to constrain the
flooding of IP multicast traffic in a VPLS.
5 Constraining of IP Multicast in a VPLS
The objective of improving the efficiency of VPLS for multicast
traffic that we are trying to optimize here has the following
constraints:
- The service is VPLS, i.e., a layer-2 VPN,
- In VPLS, ingress replication is required,
- There is no layer-3 adjacency (e.g., PIM) between a CE and a
PE.
Under these circumstances, the most obvious approach is
implementation of IGMP and PIM snooping in VPLS. Other multicast
routing protocols such as DVMRP and MOSPF are outside the scope of
this document.
[Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Another approach to constrain multicast traffic in a VPLS is to
utilize point-multipoint LSPs (e.g., [PMP-RSVP-TE]). In such case,
one has to establish a point-multipoint LSP from a source PE (i.e.,
the PE to which the source router is connected to) to all other PEs
participating in the VPLS instance. In this case, if nothing is
done, all PEs will receive multicast traffic even if they donĘt have
any members hanging off of them. One can apply IGMP/PIM snooping,
but this time IGMP/PIM snooping should be done in P routers as well.
One can propose a dynamic way of establishing point-multipoint LSPs,
for instance by mapping IGMP/PIM messages to RSVP-TE signaling. One
should consider the effect of such approach on the signaling load and
on the delay between the time the join request received and the
traffic is received (this is important for IPTV application for
instance). This approach is outside the scope of this document.
Although, in some extremely controlled cases, such as a ring topology
of PE routers with no P routers or a tree topology, the efficiency of
the replication of IP multicast can be improved. For instance, spoke
PWs of a hierarchical VPLS can be daisy-chained together and some
replication rules can be devised. These cases will not be considered
in this document.
In the following sections, we provide some guidelines for the
implementation of IGMP and PIM snooping in VPLS.
5.1 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.
As already stated, the scope of this document is limited to snooping
IGMP/PIM packets. So, we are concerned with snooping specific IP
payloads. Nonetheless, there are two IP versions a PE would have to
be able to interpret. IGMP is the Group Management Protocol which
applies only to IPv4. MLD [MLD] is the equivalent of IGMPv2 defined
for IPv6. MLDv2 [MLDv2] is the equivalent of IGMPv3 defined for
IPv6. PIM runs on top of both IPv4 and IPv6.
This document mandates that a PE MUST be able to snoop IGMP and PIM
encapsulated as IPv4 payloads. The PE SHOULD also be capable of
snooping MLD/MLDv2 packets and PIM packets encapsulated as IPv6
payloads. If the PE cannot snoop IPv6 payloads, then it MUST NOT
build any snooping state for such multicast groups and MUST simply
flood any data traffic sent to such groups. This allows an IPv6-
unaware PE to perform the snooping function only on IPv4 multicast
groups. This is possible because an IPv4 multicast address and an
IPv6 multicast address never share the same MAC address.
To avoid confusion, this document describes the procedures for
IGMP/PIM snooping for IPv4. The procedures described for IGMP can
also be applied to MLD and MLDv2. Please refer to Section 3 of
[Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
[MAGMA-SNOOP] for a list of IPv4/IPv6 differences an IGMP/MLD
snooping switch has to be aware of. In addition to those
differences, some of the other differences of interest are:
- IPv4 multicast addresses map to multicast MAC addresses
starting with 01:00:5E and IPv6 multicast addresses map to
multicast MAC addresses starting with 33:33. So the MAC
addresses used for IPv4 and IPv6 never overlap.
5.2 General Rules for IGMP/PIM Snooping in VPLS
The following rules for the correct operation of IGMP/PIM snooping
MUST be followed.
Rule 1: IGMP and PIM messages forwarded by PEs MUST follow the split-
horizon rule for mesh PWs as defined in [VPLS-LDP].
Rule 2: IGMP/PIM snooping states in a PE MUST be per VPLS instance.
Rule 3: If a PE does not have any entry in a IGMP/PIM snooping state
for multicast group (*,G) or (S,G), the multicast traffic to that
group in the VPLS instance MUST be flooded.
Rule 4: A PE MUST support PIM mode selection per VPLS instance via
CLI and/or EMS. Another option could be to deduce the PIM mode from
RP address for a specific multicast group. For instance, a RP address
can be learned during the Designated Forwarder (DF) election stage
for Bidirectional-PIM.
5.3 IGMP Snooping for VPLS
IGMP is a mechanism to inform the routers on a subnet of a hostĘs
request to become a member of a particular multicast group. IGMP is
a stateful protocol. The router (i.e., the Querier) regularly
verifies that the hosts want to continue to participate in the
multicast groups by sending periodic queries, transmitted to all
hosts multicast group (IP:224.0.0.1, MAC:01-00-5E-00-00-01) on the
subnet. If the hosts are still interested in that particular
multicast group, they respond with membership report message,
transmitted to the multicast group of which they are members. In
IGMPv1 [RFC1112], the hosts simply stop responding to IGMP queries
with membership reports, when they want to leave a multicast group.
IGMPv2 [RFC2236] adds a leave message that a host will use when it
needs to leave a particular multicast group. IGMPv3 [RFC3376]
extends the report/leave mechanism beyond multicast group to permit
joins and leaves to be issued for specific source/group (S,G) pairs.
In IGMP snooping, a PE snoops on the IGMP protocol exchange between
hosts and routers, and based on that restricts the flooding of IP
multicast traffic. In the following, we explore the mechanisms
involved in implementing IGMP snooping for VPLS. Please refer to
Figure 1 as an example of VPLS with IGMP snooping. In the figure,
Router 1 is the Querier. If multiple routers exist on a single
subnet (basically that is what a VPLS instance is), they can mutually
[Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
elect a designated router (DR) that will manage all of the IGMP
messages for that subnet.
VPLS Instance
+------+ AC1 +------+ +------+ AC4 +------+
| Host |-----| PE |-------------| PE |-----|Router|
| 1 | | 1 |\ PW1to3 /| 3 | | 1 |
+------+ +------+ \ / +------+ +------+
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ /PW2to3 |
| \ / |
PW1to2| \ |PW3to4
| / \ |
| / \PW1to4 |
| / \ |
| / \ |
+------+ +------+ / \ +------+ +------+
| Host | | PE |/ PW2to4 \| PE | |Router|
| 2 |-----| 2 |-------------| 4 |-----| 2 |
+------+ AC2 +------+ +------+ AC5 +------+
|
|AC3
+------+
| Host |
| 3 |
+------+
Figure 1 Reference Diagram for IGMP Snooping for VPLS
5.3.1 Discovering Multicast Routers
A PE need to discover the multicast routers in VPLS instances. This
is necessary because:
- Designated Router can be different from the Querier on a LAN.
- It is not always the Querier that initiates PIM joins
- Multicast traffic to the LAN could arrive from a non-querying
router because it could be the closest to the source.
As recommended in [MAGMA-SNOOP], the PEs can discover multicast
routers using Multicast Router Discovery Protocol or they can be
statically configured. Since multicast routing protocols other than
PIM is out scope, multicast routers can also be discovered by
snooping PIM Hello packets as described in Section 5.4.2.1.
5.3.2 IGMP Snooping Protocol State
The IGMP snooping mechanism described here builds the following state
on the PEs.
For each VPLS Instance
[Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- Set of Multicast Routers (McastRouters) in the VPLS instance
using mechanisms listed in Section 5.2.1.
- The IGMP Querying Router (Querier) in the VPLS instance.
For each Group entry (*,G) or Source Filtering entry (S,G) in a VPLS
instance
- Set of interfaces (ACs and/or PWs) from which IGMP membership
reports were received. For (*,G) entries, we will call this set
igmp_include(*,G). For (S,G) entries, we will call this set
igmp_include(S,G).
- Set of interfaces from which IGMPv3 hosts have requested to not
receive traffic from the specified sources. We will call this
set igmp_exclude(S,G).
On each interface I, for each (*,G) or (S,G) entry
- A Group Timer (GroupTimer(*,G,I)) representing the hold-time
for each downstream (*,G) report received on interface I.
- A Source Timer (SrcTimer(S,G,I)) representing the hold-time for
each downstream (S,G) report received on interface I.
5.3.3 IGMP Join
The IGMP snooping mechanism for joining a multicast group (for all
IGMP versions) works as follows:
- The PE does querier election (by tracking query messages and
the source IP addresses) to determine the Querier when there
are multiple routers present. Additionally, the query must be
received with a non-zero source-ip-address to perform the
Querier election
- At this point all PEs learn the place of the Querier. For
instance, for PE 1 it is behind PW1to3, for PE 2 behind PW2to3,
for PE 3 behind AC4, for PE 4 behind PW3to4.
- The Querier sends a membership query on the LAN. The
membership query can be either general query or group specific
query.
- PE 3 replicates the query message and forwards it to all PEs
participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 1, PE 2, PE 4).
- PE 3 keeps a state of {[McastRouters: AC4, PW3to4], [Querier:
AC4]}.
- All PEs then forward the query to ACs which are part of the
VPLS instance.
- Suppose that all hosts (Host 1, Host 2, and Host 3) want to
participate in the multicast group.
- Host 2 first (for the sake of the example) sends a membership
report to the multicast group (e.g., IP: 239.1.1.1, MAC: 01-00-
5E-01-01-01), of which Host 2 wants to be a member.
[Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- PE 2 replicates the membership report message and forwards it
to all PEs participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 1, PE
3, PE 4).
- PE 2 notes that there is a directly connected host, which is
willing to participate in the multicast group and updates its
state to {[McastRouters: PW2to3, PW2to4], [Querier: PW2to3],
[igmp_include(*,G):AC2; GroupTimer(*,G,AC2)=GMI]}.
Guideline 1: A PE MUST forward a membership report message to ACs
that are part of "McastRouters" state. This is necessary to avoid
report suppression for other members in order for the PEs to
construct correct states and to not have any orphan receiver
hosts.
There are still some scenarios that can result in orphan receivers.
For instance, a multicast router and some hosts could be connected to
a customer layer-2 switch, and that layer-2 switch can be connected
to a PE via an AC. In such scenario, the customer layer-2 switch
MUST perform IGMP snooping as well, and it MUST NOT forward the IGMP
report messages coming from the PE to the hosts directly connected to
it. There can be some cases such that the layer-2 switch does not
have IGMP snooping capability or that device is a dummy hub/bridge.
In such cases, one can statically configure the AC, through which the
IGMP incapable layer-2 device is connected, to be a (S,G)/(*,G)
member on the PE. This way, multicast traffic will always be sent to
the hosts connected to that layer-2 device, even they donĘt send
joins because of join suppression.
Continuing with the example:
- PE 2 does not forward the membership report of Host 2 to Host
3.
- Per the guideline above, PE 1 does not forward the membership
report of Host 2 to Host 1.
- Per the guideline above, PE 3 does forward the membership
report of Host 2 to Router 1 (the Querier).
- PE 3 notes that there is a host in the VPLS instance, which is
willing to participate in the multicast group and updates its
state to {[McastRouters: AC4, PW3to4], [Querier: AC4],
[igmp_include(*,G): PW2to3; GroupTimer(*,G,PW2to3)=GMI]}
regardless of the type of the query.
- LetĘs assume that Host 1 subsequently sends a membership report
to the same multicast group.
- PE 1 replicates the membership report message and forwards it
to all PEs participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 2, PE
3, PE 4).
[Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- PE 1 notes that there is a directly connected host, which is
willing to participate in the multicast group. Basically, it
keeps a state of {[McastRouters: PW1to3, PW1to4], [Querier:
PW1to3], [igmp_include(*,G): AC1,PW1to2;
GroupTimer(*,G,AC1)=GMI]}.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 2 does not forward the membership report of
Host 1 to Host 2 and Host 3.
- PE 3 and PE 4 receive the membership report message of Host 1
and check their states. Per Guideline 1, they send the report
to Router 1 and Router 2 respectively. They also update their
states to reflect Host 1.
- Now, Host 3 sends a membership report to the same multicast
group.
- PE 2 updates its state to {[McastRouters: PW2to3, PW2to4],
[Querier: PW2to3], [igmp_include(*,G): AC2,AC3,PW1to2;
GroupTimer(*,G,AC3)=GMI]}. It then floods the report message to
all PEs participating in the VPLS instance. Per Guideline 1,
PE 3 forwards the membership report of Host 3 to Router 1, and
PE 4 forwards the membership report of Host 3 to Router 2.
At this point, all PEs have necessary states to ensure that no
multicast traffic will be sent to sites with no members.
The previous steps work the same way for IGMPv1 and IGMPv2, when the
query is general or source specific.
The group and source specific query for IGMPv3 is considered
separately below. In IGMPv3, there is no simple membership join or
leave report. IGMPv3 reports are one of IS_INCLUDE, IS_EXCLUDE,
ALLOW, BLOCK, TO_INCLUDE, TO_EXCLUDE. The PEs MUST implement the
"router behavior" portion of the state machine defined in Section 6
of [RFC3376].
The IGMP snooping mechanism for joining a multicast group (for
IGMPv3) works as follows:
- The Querier sends a membership query to the LAN. The
membership query is group and source specific query with a list
of sources (e.g., S1, S2, .., Sn).
- PE 3 replicates the query message and forwards it to all PEs
participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 1, PE 2, PE 4).
- PE 3 keeps a state of {[McastRouters: AC4, PW3to4], [Querier:
AC4]}.
- All PEs then forward the query to ACs which are part of the
VPLS instance.
- Suppose that all hosts (Host 1, Host 2, and Host 3) want to
participate in the multicast group. Host 1 and Host 2 want to
subscribe to (Sn,G), and Host 3 wants to subscribe to (S3,G).
[Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- Host 2 first (for the sake of the example) sends a membership
report message with group record type IS_INCLUDE for (Sn,G).
- PE 2 replicates the membership report message and forwards it
to all PEs participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 1, PE
3, PE 4).
- PE 2 notes that there is a directly connected host, which is
willing to participate in the multicast group and updates its
state to {[McastRouters: PW2to3, PW2to4], [Querier: PW2to3],
[igmp_include(Sn,G): AC2; SrcTimer(Sn,G,AC2)=GMI]}.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 2 does not forward the membership report of
Host 2 to Host 3.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 1 does not forward the membership report of
Host 2 to Host 1.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 3 does forward the membership report of
Host 2 to Router 1 (the Querier).
- Per Guideline 1, PE 4 does forward the membership report of
Host 2 to Router 2.
- PE 3 notes that there is a host in the VPLS instance, which is
willing to participate in the multicast group. Basically, it
updates its state to {[McastRouters: AC4, PW3to4], [Querier:
AC4], [igmp_include(Sn,G): PW2to3; SrcTimer(Sn,G,PW2to3)=GMI]}.
- Likewise, PE 4 updates its state to {[McastRouters: PW3to4,
AC5], [Querier: PW3to4], [igmp_include(Sn,G):PW2to4;
SrcTimer(Sn,G,PW2to4)=GMI]}.
- LetĘs say Host 1 now sends a membership report message with
group record type IS_INCLUDE for (Sn,G).
- Similar procedures are followed by PEs as explained in the
previous steps. For instance, PE 1 updates its state to
{[McastRouters: PW1to3, PW1to4], [Querier: PW1to3],
[igmp_include(Sn,G): PW1to2, AC1; SrcTimer(Sn,G,AC1)=GMI}. PE
3 updates its state to {[McastRouters: AC4, PW3to4], [Querier:
AC4] [igmp_include(Sn,G): PW2to3, PW1to3;
SrcTimer(Sn,G,PW1to3)=GMI]}.
- Finally, Host 3 sends a membership report message with group
record type IS_INCLUDE for (S3,G).
- PE 2 replicates the membership report message and forwards it
to all PEs participating in the VPLS instance (i.e., PE 1, PE
3, PE 4).
- Per Guideline 1, PE 2 does not forward the membership report of
Host 3 to Host 2.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 1 does not forward the membership report of
Host 3 to Host 1.
- Per Guideline 1, PE 3 does forward the membership report of
Host 3 to Router 1.
[Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- Per Guideline 1, PE 4 does forward the membership report of
Host 3 to Router 2.
- All PEs update their states accordingly. For instance, PE 2
updates its state to {[McastRouters: PW2to3, PW2to4], [Querier:
PW2to3], [igmp_include(S3,G): AC3; SrcTimer(S3,G,AC3)=GMI]],
[igmp_include(Sn,G): PW1to2, AC2], [SrcTimer(Sn,G,AC2)=GMI]}.
PE 4 updates its state to {[McastRouters: AC5, PW3to4],
[Querier: PW3to4], [igmp_include(S3,G): PW2to4;
SrcTimer(S3,G,PW2to4)=GMI], [igmp_include(Sn,G): PW1to4,
PW2to4; SrcTimer(Sn,G,PW2to4)=GMI]}.
At this point, all PEs have necessary states to not send multicast
traffic to sites with no members.
Based on above description of IGMPv3 based snooping for VPLS, one may
conclude that the PEs MUST have the capability to store (S,G) state
and MUST forward/replicate traffic accordingly. This is, however,
not MANDATORY. A PE MAY only keep (*,G) based states rather than on
a per (S,G) basis with the understanding that this will result in a
less efficient IP multicast forwarding within each VPLS instance.
Guideline 2: If a PE receives unsolicited report message and if it
does not possess a state for that particular multicast group, it MUST
flood that unsolicited membership report message to all PEs
participating in the VPLS instance, as well as to the multicast
router if it is locally attached.
5.3.4 IGMP Leave
The IGMP snooping mechanism for leaving a multicast group works as
follows:
- In the case of IGMPv2, when a PE receives a leave (*,G) message
from a host via its AC, it lowers the corresponding
GroupTimer(*,G,AC) to "Last Member Query Time" (LMQT).
- In the case of IGMPv3, when a PE receives a membership report
message with group record type of IS_EXCLUDE or TO_EXCLUDE or
BLOCK for (S,G) from a host via its AC, it lowers the
corresponding SrcTimer(S,G,AC) for all affected (S,G)s to LMQT.
In the following guideline, a "leave (*,G)/(S,G) message" also means
IGMPv3 membership report message with group record type of IS_EXCLUDE
or TO_EXCLUDE or BLOCK for (S,G).
Guideline 3: A PE MUST NOT forward a leave (*,G)/(S,G) message to
ACs participating in the VPLS instance, If the PE still has
locally connected hosts or hosts connected over a H-VPLS spoke in
its state.
[Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Guideline 4: A PE MUST forward a leave (*,G)/(S,G) message to all
PEs participating in the VPLS instance. A PE MAY forward the
leave (*,G)/(S,G) message to the "McastRouters" ONLY, if there are
no member hosts in its state.
Guideline 5: If a PE does not receive a (*,G) membership report
from an AC before GroupTimer(*,G,AC) expires, the PE MUST remove
the AC from its state. In case of IGMPv3, if a PE does not
receive a (S,G) membership report from an AC before the
SrcTimer(S,G,AC) expires, the PE MUST remove the AC from its
state.
5.3.5 Failure Scenarios
Up to now, we did not consider any failures, which we will focus in
this section.
- In case the Querier fails (e.g., AC to the Querier fails),
another router in the VPLS instance will be selected as the
Querier. The new Querier will be sending queries. In such
circumstances, the IGMP snooping states in the PEs will be
updated/overwritten by the same procedure explained above.
- In case a Multicast router fails, the IGMP snooping states in
the PEs will be updated/overwritten by the multicast router
discovery procedures provided in Section 5.3.1.
- In case a host fails (e.g., AC to the host fails), a PE removes
the host from its IGMP snooping state for that particular
multicast group. Guidelines 3, 4 and 5 still apply here.
- In case a PW (which is in IGMP snooping state) fails, the PEs
will remove the PW from their IGMP snooping state. For
instance, if PW1to3 fails, then PE 1 will remove PW1to3 from
its state as the Querier connection, and PE 3 will remove
PW1to3 from its state as one of the host connections.
Guidelines 3, 4 and 5 still apply here. After PW is restored,
the IGMP snooping states in the PEs will be updated/overwritten
by the same procedure explained above. One can implement a
dead timer before making any changes to IGMP snooping states
upon PW failure. In that case, IGMP snooping states will be
altered if the PW can not be restored before the dead timer
expires.
5.3.6 Scaling Considerations for IGMP Snooping
In scenarios where there are multiple ACs connected to a PE, it is
quite likely that IGMP membership reports for the same group are
received from multiple ACs. The normal behavior would be to have
each of the membership reports sent to McastRouters. But in
scenarios where many ACs send IGMP membership reports to the same
groups, the burden on all the other PEs can be overwhelming. To make
matters worse, there can be a large number of hosts on the same AC
[Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
that all request IGMP membership reports to the same group. While
[IGMPv2] suggests the use of report suppression, [IGMPv3] does not.
Regardless, if hosts do not implement report suppression, this can be
a scaling issue on the PEs. This section outlines the optimization
suggested in [MAGMA-SNOOOP] to perform proxy-querying and proxy-
reporting function on the PEs to avoid report explosion.
For this optimization, we separate out the IGMP group state on the
PEs into downstream state and upstream state.
Note that the following sub-sections describe the procedures for
(*,G). The same procedures must be extended to (S,G)s. Furthermore,
the behavior described is for a downstream PE. While it is very
important for downstream PEs to implement the proxy behavior
described here, the scalability issues are not as bad on upstream
PEs. Optimizing upstream PEs would be designed to alleviate the
burden on the upstream CEs. Nevertheless, the same procedures can be
applied to upstream PEs as well, as an added optimization. The only
difference would be that ACs would be upstream interface(s) and PWs
would be downstream interface(s) for such PEs.
5.3.7 Downstream Proxy Behavior
When an IGMP membership Report for a group is received on an AC, the
PE adds the AC to the corresponding igmp_include set and resets the
GrpTimer to GMI.
When an IGMP membership Leave for a group is received on an AC, the
PE lowers the corresponding GrpTimer to LMQT and sends out a proxy
group-specific query on that AC. When sending the group-specific
query, the PE encodes 0.0.0.0 (or:: in case of IPv6) in the source-ip
address field. If there is no other host interested in that group,
then the AC is removed from the corresponding igmp_include set after
the GrpTimer expires.
There may be some cases where the Querier and hosts are connected via
a layer-2 device behind an AC. To take care of those special
circumstances, the PE MUST NOT send out the proxy group-specific
query on the interface on which the Querier exists.
5.3.8 Upstream Proxy Behavior
When the igmp_include set for a group becomes non-null, the PE sends
out a proxy IGMP Join report for that group to McastRouters. When
the igmp_include set for a group becomes empty, the PE sends out a
proxy IGMP Leave report for that group to McastRouters.
When the PE receives a general query, it replies with its current
snooping state for all groups and group-sources. It also forwards
the general query to all ACs thus removing the need for proxy general
queries. When the PE receives a group-specific or group-source
specific query, the PE does not forward such queries to the ACs.
Instead, it replies with a proxy report if it has snooping state for
that group or group-source. When sending the proxy report, the PE
[Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
encodes 0.0.0.0 (or :: in the case of IPv6) in the source-ip address
field.
5.4 PIM Snooping for VPLS
IGMP snooping procedures described above 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. This section describes the procedures for 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 versions (PIM-SM [RFC2362], PIM-SSM
[PIM-SSM], and BIDIR-PIM [BIDIR-PIM]) invokes 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/prune
specific multicast groups. This is accomplished by having downstream
routers send an explicit join 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.
5.4.1 PIM Snooping State Summarization Macros
The following sets are defined to help build the forwarding state on
a PE. Some sets may apply only to a subset of the PIM Protocol
variants as noted along with the definition of the sets.
pim_joins(*,G) =
Set of all downstream interfaces on which PIM (*,G) Joins are
received. This set applies only to PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, PIM-BIDIR.
pim_joins(S,G) =
[Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Set of all downstream interfaces on which PIM (S,G) Joins are
received. This set applies only to PIM-SM, PIM-SSM.
all_pim_DM_oiflist =
If the upstream interface (the interface towards the upstream PIM
neighbor) is a PW, then this set is the set of all ACs on which there
are PIM neighbors. If the upstream interface is an AC, then this is
the set of all interfaces (both AC and PW) on which there are PIM
neighbors. This set applies only to PIM-DM.
pim_prunes(S,G) =
Set of all downstream interfaces on which PIM (S,G) prunes are
received. This set applies only to PIM-DM.
pim_prunes(S,G,rpt) =
Set of all downstream interfaces on which PIM (S,G,rpt) prunes are
received. This set applies only to PIM-SM.
pim_oiflist(*,G) =
Set of interfaces that PIM contributes to the list of outgoing
interfaces to which data traffic must be forwarded on a (*,G) match.
pim_oiflist(S,G) =
Set of interfaces that PIM contributes to the list of outgoing
interfaces to which data traffic must be forwarded on an (S,G) match.
Note that pim_oiflist is not the complete list of outgoing interfaces
(oiflist). IGMP/MLD also contribute to this list.
For PIM-DM,
pim_oiflist(S,G) = all_pim_DM_oiflist (-) pim_prunes(S,G)
For PIM-SM and PIM-SSM,
pim_inherited_oiflist(S,G,rpt) = pim_joins(*,G) (-)
pim_prunes(S,G,rpt)
pim_oiflist(*,G) = pim_joins(*,G)
pim_oiflist(S,G) = pim_inherited_oiflist(S,G,rpt) (+)
pim_joins(S,G)
For PIM-BIDIR,
pim_oiflist(*,G) = DF(RP(G)) + pim_joins(*,G)
Where DF(RP(G)) is the AC/PW towards the router that is the
designated forwarder for RP(G).
In the following, the mechanisms involved for implementing PIMv2
([RFC2362]) snooping in VPLS are specified. PIMv1 is out of the
[Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
scope of this document. Please refer to Figure 2 as an example of
VPLS with PIM snooping.
VPLS Instance
+------+ AC1 +------+ +------+ AC4 +------+
|Router|-----| PE |-------------| PE |-----|Router|
| 1 | | 1 |\ PW1to3 /| 3 | | 4 |
+------+ +------+ \ / +------+ +------+
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ /PW2to3 |
| \ / |
PW1to2| \ |PW3to4
| / \ |
| / \PW1to4 |
| / \ |
| / \ |
+------+ +------+ / \ +------+ +------+
|Router| | PE |/ PW2to4 \| PE | |Router|
| 2 |-----| 2 |-------------| 4 |-----| 5 |
+------+ AC2 +------+ +------+ AC5 +------+
|
|AC3
+------+
|Router|
| 3 |
+------+
Figure 2 Reference Diagram for PIM Snooping for VPLS
In the following sub-sections, snooping mechanisms for each variety
of PIM are specified.
5.4.2 PIM-DM
The characteristics of PIM-DM is flood and prune behavior. Shortest
path trees are built as a multicast source starts transmitting.
In Figure 2, the multicast source is behind Router 4, and all routers
have at least one receiver except Router 3 and Router 5.
5.4.2.1 Discovering Multicast Routers
The PIM-DM snooping mechanism for neighbor discovery works as
follows:
- To establish PIM neighbor adjacencies, PIM multicast routers
(all routers in this example) send PIM Hello messages to the
ALL PIM Routers group address (IPv4: 224.0.0.13, MAC: 01-00-5E-
00-00-0D) on every PIM enabled interfaces. The IPv6 ALL PIM
Routers group is "ff02::d". In addition, PIM Hello messages
are used to elect Designated Router for a multi-access network.
[Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
In PIM-DM, the DR acts as the Querier if IGMPv1 is used.
Otherwise, DR has no function in PIM-DM.
Guideline 6: PIM Hello messages MUST be flooded in the VPLS
instance. A PE MUST populate its "PIM Neighbors" list according
to the snooping results. This is a general PIM snooping guideline
and applies to all variants of PIM snooping.
Guideline 7: For PIM-DM only. pim_oiflist(S,G) is populated with
all_pim_DM_oiflist (the ACs/PWs in the "PIM Neighbors" list).
Changes to the "PIM Neighbors" list MUST be replicated to
all_pim_DM_oiflist.
- Every router starts sending PIM Hello messages. Per Guideline
6, every PE replicates Hello messages and forwards them to all
PEs participating in the VPLS instance.
- Based on PIM Hello exchanges PE routers populate PIM snooping
states as follows. PE 1: {[pim_oiflist(S,G): AC1, PW1to2,
PW1to3, PW1to4], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router
2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)] }, PE
2: {[pim_oiflist(S,G): AC2, AC3, PW1to2, PW2to3, PW2to4], [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3),
(Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3:
{[pim_oiflist(S,G): AC4, PW1to3, PW2to3, PW3to4], [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3),
(Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[pim_oiflist(S,G):
AC5, PW1to4, PW2to4, PW3to4], [PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4),
(Router 5,AC5)]}. The original pim_oiflist(S,G) is populated
with ACs/PWs in the PIM neighbor list per Guideline 7..
- PIM Hello messages contain a Holdtime value, which tells the
receiver when to expire the neighbor adjacency (which is three
times the Hello period).
Guideline 8: If a PE does not receive a Hello message from a
router within its Holdtime, the PE MUST remove that router from
the PIM snooping state. If a PE receives a Hello message from a
router with Holdtime value set to zero, the PE MUST remove that
router from the PIM snooping state immediately. PEs MUST track
the Hello Holdtime value per PIM neighbor.
5.4.2.2 PIM-DM Multicast Forwarding
The PIM-DM snooping mechanism for multicast forwarding works as
follows:
- When the source starts sending traffic to multicast group
(S,G), PE 3 updates its state to PE 3: {[(S,G); Source: (Router
[Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
4,AC4); pim_oiflist(S,G): PW1to3, PW2to3, PW3to4], [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3),
(Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}. AC4 is removed from the
"pim_oiflist" list for (S,G), since it is where the multicast
traffic comes from.
Guideline 9: 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.
- PE 3 replicates the multicast traffic and sends it to the other
PE routers in its pim_oiflist(S,G).
- Consequently, all PEs update their states as follows. PE 1:
{[(S,G); Source: (Router 4,PW1to3); pim_oiflist(S,G): AC1],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2),
(Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[(S,G); Source:
(Router 4,PW2to3); pim_oiflist(S,G): AC2, AC3], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router
4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 4: {[(S,G); Source: (Router
4,PW3to4); pim_oiflist(S,G): AC5], [PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4),
(Router 5,AC5)]}.
5.4.2.3 PIM-DM Pruning
At this point all the routers (Router 1, Router 2,Router 3, Router 5)
receive the multicast traffic.
- However, Router 3 and Router 5 do not have any members for that
multicast group, so they send prune messages to leave the
multicast group to the ALL PIM Routers group. PE 2 updates its
state to PE 2: {[(S,G); Source: (Router 4,PW2to3);
pim_prunes(S,G): AC3, pim_oiflist(S,G): AC2], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router
4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}. PE 4 also removes Router 5
from its state as well.
Guideline 10: The PIM-DM prune message MUST be forwarded towards
the upstream PE only if pim_oiflist(S,G) became empty as a result
of the received prune message. If pim_oiflist(S,G) was already
null when the PIM-DM prune was received, then the prune MUST NOT
be forwarded upstream.
- PE 2 does not forward the prune message per Guideline 10. PE 4
updates its state to PE 4: {[(S,G); Source: (Router 4,AC4);
pim_prunes(S,G): AC5, pim_oiflist(S,G):], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router
[Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}. PE 4 does forward the prune
message to PE 3 (upstream neighbor) per guideline 10 and
- PIM-DM prune messages contain a Holdtime value, which specifies
how many seconds the prune state should last.
Guideline 11: For PIM-DM only. A PE MUST keep the prune state for
a PW/AC according to the Holdtime in the prune message, unless a
corresponding Graft message is received.
- Upon receiving the prune messages, each PE 3 updates its state
accordingly to PE 3: {[(S,G); Source: (Router 4,AC4);
pim_prunes(S,G): PW2to4, pim_oiflist(S,G): PW1to3, PW2to3],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3),
(Router 4,AC4), (Router 5, PW3to4)]}.
Guideline 12: For PIM-DM only. To avoid overriding joins, a PE
SHOULD suppress the PIM prune messages to directly connected
routers (i.e., ACs), as long as there is a PW/AC in its
corresponding pim_oiflist(S,G).
- In this case, PE 1, PE 2, and PE 3 do not forward the prune
messages to their directly connected routers.
5.4.2.4 PIM-DM Grafting
The multicast traffic is now flowing only to points in the network
where receivers are present.
Guideline 13: For PIM-DM only. A PE MUST remove the AC/PW from
its corresponding prune state (pim_prunes(S,G)) when it receives a
graft message from the AC/PW. That is, the corresponding AC/PW
MUST be added to the pim_oiflist(S,G) list.
Guideline 14: For PIM-DM only. PIM-DM graft messages MUST be
forwarded based on the destination MAC address. If the
destination MAC address is 01-00-5E-00-00-0D, then the graft
message MUST be flooded in the VPLS instance. PIM-DM graft
messages MUST NOT be forwarded if pim_oiflist is non-null.
- For the sake of example, suppose now Router 3 has a receiver
the multicast group (S,G). Assuming Router 3 sends a graft
message in IP unicast to Router 4 to restart the flow of
multicast traffic. PE 2 updates its state to PE 2: {[(S,G);
Source: (Router 4,PW2to3); pim_prunes(S,G): , pim_oiflist(S,G):
AC2, AC3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2),
(Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}. PE 2
[Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
does not forward the graft message to PE 3 according to
Guideline 14.
5.4.2.5 Failure Scenarios
Guideline 15: PIM Assert messages MUST be flooded in the VPLS
instance.
Guideline 16: If an AC/PW goes down, a PE MUST remove it from its
PIM snooping state.
Failures can be easily handled in PIM-DM snooping, as it uses push
technique. If an AC or a PW goes down, PEs in the VPLS instance will
remove it from their snooping state. After the AC/PW comes back up,
it will be automatically added to the pim_oiflist by PE routers, as
all PWs/ACs MUST be in the pim_oiflist, unless they are pruned later
on.
5.4.3 PIM-SM
The key characteristics of PIM-SM is explicit join behavior. In this
model, the multicast traffic is only sent to locations that
specifically request it. The root node of a tree is the Rendezvous
Point (RP) in case of a shared tree or the first hop router that is
directly connected to the multicast source in the case of a shortest
path tree.
In Figure 2, the RP is behind Router 4, and all routers have at least
one member except Router 3 and Router 5.
As in the case with IGMPv3 snooping, we assume that the PEs have the
capability to store (S,G) states for PIM-SM snooping and
forward/replicate traffic accordingly.
If the PE were to convert a received PIM (S,G) into PIM (*,G), then
it would not know where the RP is and hence where to forward the join
and prunes. Legacy switches may not be able to support (S,G)
forwarding and hence the forwarding portion can probably be made
optional. But there may be some issues with that if there are
multiple (S,G)s for the same G. For instance, the PEs may go into
continuous tear-down/build-up of snooping state. In addition, the
efficiency of multicast forwarding will be less.
5.4.3.1 Discovering Multicast Routers
The PIM-SM snooping mechanism for neighbor discovery works the same
way as the procedure defined in PIM-DM section, with the exception of
PIM-DM only guidelines.
- Based on PIM Hello exchanges PE routers populate PIM snooping
states as follows. PE 1: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router
2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]},
[Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
PE 3: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: { [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4),
(Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
To reduce the amount of PIM Join/Prune traffic in the VPLS network,
it is important that Explicit-Tracking capability be disabled between
the CEs. If a CE advertises tracking support, it is RECOMMENDED that
the PEs modify the tracking-support option in CE Hello packets before
forwarding them to ensure that tracking support is disabled between
the CEs. Otherwise, the mechanism listed for "JP_Optimization"
throughout the PIM-SM and PIM-SSM sections of this document MUST NOT
be employed.
NOTE: The examples below are for scenarios where JP_Optimization is
not employed.
For PIM-SM to work properly, all routers within the domain must use
the same mappings of group addresses to RP addresses. Currently,
there are three methods for RP discovery: 1. Static RP configuration,
2, Auto-RP, and 3. PIMv2 Bootstrap Router mechanism.
Guideline 17: Cisco RP-Discovery (IP:224.0.1.40, MAC:01-00-5E-00-
01-28), Cisco-RP-Announce (IP:224.0.1.39, MAC:01-00-5E-00-01-27),
all bootstrap router (BSR) (IP:224.0.0.13, MAC:01-00-5E-00-00-0D
for IPv4 or FF02::D for IPv6) messages MUST be flooded in the
VPLS instance.
5.4.3.2 PIM-SM (*,G) Join
The PIM-SM snooping mechanism for joining a multicast group (*,G)
works as follows:
Guideline 18: PIM-SM join messages MUST be sent only to the remote
PE, which is connected to the router to which the Join is
addressed.
JP_Optimization: The PIM-SM join message MUST be forwarded towards
the upstream CE only if pim_joins(*,G) became non-empty as a
result of the received join message. If pim_joins(*,G) was
already non-null when the PIM-SM join was received, then the join
MUST NOT be forwarded upstream.
PIM-SM join messages MUST be sent only to the remote PE, which is
connected to the router to which the Join is addressed. The remote
PE can be determined by the "Upstream Neighbor Address" field of the
Join message. The "Upstream Neighbor Address" can be correlated to a
PW or an AC in the "PIM Neighbors" state. By Guideline 18, we are
ensuring that the other routers that are part of the VPLS instance do
not receive the PIM join messages and will initiate their own join
[Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
messages if they are interested in receiving that particular
multicast traffic.
- Assume Router 1 wants to join the multicast group (*,G) sends a
join message for the multicast group (*,G). PE 1 sends the
join message to PE 3 by Guideline 18.
Guideline 19: A PE MUST add a PW/AC to its pim_joins(*,G) list, if
it receives a (*,G) join message from the PW/AC.
- PE 1 updates their states as follows: PE 1: {[pim_joins(*,G):
AC1], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router
3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}.
A periodic refresh mechanism is used in PIM-SM to maintain the proper
state. PIM-SM join messages contain a Holdtime value, which
specifies for how many seconds the join state should be kept.
Guideline 20: If a PE does not receive a refresh join message from
a PW/AC within its Holdtime, the PE MUST remove the PW/AC from its
pim_joins(*,G) list.
- All PEs update their states accordingly as follows: PE 1:
{[pim_joins(*,G): AC1], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router
2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE
2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router
3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3:
{[pim_joins(*,G): PW1to3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router
5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
- After Router 2 joins the same multicast group, the states
become as follows: PE 1: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC1], [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router
4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC2],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router
3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3:
{[pim_joins(*,G): PW1to3, PW2to3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router
5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
- For the sake of example, Router 3 joins the multicast group.
PE 2 sends the join message to PE 3.
- Next Router 5 joins the group, and the states are updated
accordingly: PE 1: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC1], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3),
[Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
(Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC2, AC3], [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3),
(Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[pim_joins(*,G):
PW1to3, PW2to3, PW3to4], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router
5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC5],[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router
4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}
At this point, all PEs have necessary states to not send multicast
traffic to sites with no members.
5.4.3.3 PIM-SM Pruning
The PIM-SM snooping mechanism for leaving a multicast group works as
follows:
- Assume Router 5 sends a prune message.
Guideline 21: PIM-SM prune messages MUST be flooded in the VPLS
instance.
JP_Optimization: Instead of the above guideline, a PE MUST forward
prune messages only towards the upstream CE and only if
pim_joins(*,G) became empty as a result of the received prune
message. If pim_joins(*,G) is non-empty after receiving the prune
message, the PE MUST NOT forward the prune message.
Guideline 22: A PE MUST remove a PW/AC from its pim_joins(*,G)
list if it receives a (*,G) prune message from the PW/AC. A
prune-delay timer SHOULD be implemented to support prune override.
However, the prune-delay timer is not required if there is only
one PIM neighbor on that AC/PW on which the prune was received.
- PE 4 floods the (*,G) prune to the VPLS instance per Guideline
21. PE routers participating in the VPLS instance also forward
the (*,G) prune to the ACs, which are connected to the VPLS
instance. The states are updated as follows: PE 1:
{[pim_joins(*,G): AC1], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router
2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE
2: {[pim_joins(*,G): AC2, AC3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3),
(Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[pim_joins(*,G): PW1to3, PW2to3],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3),
(Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router
4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
[Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
In PIM-SM snooping, prune messages are flooded by PE routers. In
such implementation, PE routers may receive overriding join messages,
which will not affect anything.
5.4.3.4 PIM-SM (S,G) Join
The PIM-SM snooping mechanism for source and group specific join
works as follows:
Guideline 23: A PE MUST add a PW/AC to its pim_joins(S,G) list if
it receives a (S,G) join message from the PW/AC. The PE MUST
forward the received join message towards the upstream CE.
JP_Optimization: The PE MUST forward the Join message towards the
upstream neighbor only if the pim_joins(S,G) list becomes non-
empty as a result of the received join. If the pim_joins(S,G)
list was non-empty prior to receiving the join message, then the
PE MUST NOT forward the join message.
Guideline 24: A PE MUST remove a PW/AC from its pim_joins(S,G)
list if it receives a (S,G) prune message from the PW/AC. The PE
MUST flood the prune message in the VPLS instance. A prune-delay
timer SHOULD be implemented to support prune override on the
downstream AC/PW. However, the prune-delay timer is not required
if there is only one PIM neighbor on that AC/PW on which the prune
was received.
JP_Optimization: Instead of flooding the prune message in the VPLS
instance, the PE MUST forward the prune message towards the
upstream neighbor only if the pim_joins(S,G) list becomes empty as
a result of the received prune. If the pim_joins(S,G) list
remains non-empty after receiving the prune message, then the PE
MUST NOT forward the prune message.
Guideline 25: A PE MUST prefer (S,G) state to (*,G), if both S and
G match.
5.4.3.5 PIM-SM (S,G,rpt) Prunes
Guideline 28: When a PE receives a Prune(S,G,rpt) on an AC/PW, it
MUST add the AC/PW to the pim_prunes(S,G,rpt) list. Additionally,
if pim_inherited_olist(S,G,rpt) becomes empty, the PE MUST forward
the Prune(S,G,rpt) towards the upstream neighbor. If
pim_snoop_inherited_olist(S,G,rpt) is still non-empty, then the PE
MUST NOT forward the Prunes(S,G,rpt).
5.4.3.6 PIM-SM (*,*,RP) State
PIM-SM defines a (*,*,RP) state which is used when traffic needs to
cross multicast domains. A (*,*,RP) receiver requests all multicast
traffic within a PIM domain to be sent to it. If the two multicast
domains are both PIM-SM, they can use MSDP to leak multicast routes.
But, if one is PIM-SM and the other is PIM-DM (hence, MSDP can not be
[Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
used), then the border router would initiate a (*,*,RP) join to all
RPs in the PIM-SM domain.
If the customers will configure multiple and different PIM domains,
PIM-SM snooping MUST support (*,*,RP) state as well. Depending on
how likely scenario this is, future versions may include (*,*,RP)
states.
5.4.3.7 Failure Scenarios
Failures can be easily handled in PIM-SM snooping, as it employs
state-refresh technique. PEs in the VPLS instance will remove any
entry for non-refreshing routers from their states.
5.4.3.8 Special Cases for PIM-SM Snooping
There are some special cases to consider for PIM-SM snooping. First
one is the RP-on-a-stick. The RP-on-a-stick scenario may occur when
the Shortest Path Tree and the Shared Tree shares a common Ethernet
segment, as all routers will be connected over a multicast access
network (i.e., VPLS). Such a scenario will be handled by PIM-SM
rules (particularly, the incoming interface can not also appear in
the outgoing interface list) very nicely. Second scenario is the
turnaround router. The turnaround router scenario occurs when
shortest path tree and shared tree share a common path. The router
at which these trees merge is the turnaround router. PIM-SM handles
this case by proxy (S,G) join implementation by the turnaround
router.
There can be some scenarios where CE routers can receive duplicate
multicast traffic. LetĘs consider the scenario in Figure 3.
+------+ AC3 +------+
| PE2 |-----| R3 |
/| | | |
/ +------+ +------+
/ | |
/ | |
/PW1to2 | |
/ | +-----+
/ |PW2to3 | Src |
/ | +-----+
/ | |
/ | |
/ | |
+------+ +------+ / +------+ +------+
| R1 | | PE1 |/ PW1to3 | PE3 | | R4 |
| |-----| |-------------| |-----| |
+------+ AC1 +------+ +------+ AC4 +------+
| |
|AC2 |AC5
+------+ +------+
[Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
| R2 | | R5 | +---+
| | | |-----|RP |
+------+ +------+ +---+
Figure 3 CE Routers Receive Duplicate Traffic
In the scenario depicted in Figure 3, both R1 and R2 has two ECMP
routes to reach the source "Src". Hence, R1 may pick R3 as its next
hop ("Upstream Neighbor"), and R2 may pick R4 as its next hop. As a
result, both R1 and R2 will receive duplicate traffic.
This issue can be solved as follows. PEs can keep the PW/AC that the
join message is forwarded to (upstream PW/AC) in "pim_joins(S,G)"
list in addition to the PW/AC that the join message is received
(downstream PW/AC). If the traffic arrives from a different PW/AC,
that traffic is not forwarded downstream. Hence, in the example
depicted in Figure 3 where source is dual homed to R3 and R4, R1 will
receive (S,G) traffic if it comes from PW1to2, and R2 will receive
(S,G) traffic if it comes from PW1to3.
Again, in Figure 3, R1 may send (S,G) join to R3 and R2 may send
(*,G) join to the RP behind R5. In this scenario as well, both R1
and R2 will receive duplicate traffic, as Guideline 25 will be no
help to prevent it.
In this case, where R1 joins for (S,G), and R2 joins for (*,G), we
can do the following. We can solve the problem by triggering Assert
mechanism in CE routers. The PE which detects the duplicate traffic
problem can simply remove the snooping state for that particular
multicast group, and can send out "flush" message to other PEs
participating in the VPLS instance. In return, other PEs also flush
their snooping state for that multicast group. As a result, all the
PEs will flood the multicast traffic in the VPLS instance (by Rule
3). Consequently, CEs will do Assert. The flush message TLV can be
sent over the targeted LDP sessions running among PEs. For this
purpose, we propose new "Multicast Group TLV".
Multicast groups to be flushed can be signaled using an LDP Address
Withdraw Message that contains a FEC TLV (to identify the VPLS
instance), a Multicast Group TLV and optional parameters. The format
of the Multicast Group TLV is described below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multicast Group Address (Encoded-Group format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multicast Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
//
//
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U bit
Unknown bit. This bit MUST be set to 1. If TLV is not
understood by the node, it MUST be ignored.
F bit
Forward bit. This bit MUST be set to 0. Since the LDP
mechanism used here is Targeted, the TLV MUST NOT be forwarded.
Type
Type field. This identifies the TLV type as Multicast Group
TLV.
Value: TBA by IANA.
Length
Length field. This field specifies the total length of the
Multicast addresses in the TLV, including Multicast Group
addresses and Multicast Source Addresses.
Multicast Group Address
The address of the Multicast group that needs to be flushed.
Detailed format is described in [RFC2362] Section 4.9.1.
Multicast Source Address
The host address of the Multicast source. Detailed format is
described in [RFC2362] Section 4.9.1. A special wild card value
consisting of an address field of all zeroes can be used to
indicate any source, and all the (S,G) and (*,G) entries that
match the Group Address G MUST be flushed.
5.4.4 PIM-SSM
The key characteristics of PIM-SSM is explicit join behavior, but it
eliminates the shared tree and the rendezvous point in PIM-SM. In
this model, a shortest path tree for each (S,G) is built with the
first hop router (that is directly connected to the multicast source)
being the root node. PIM-SSM is ideal for one-to-many multicast
services.
In Figure 2, S1 is behind Router 1, and S4 is behind Router 4.
Routers 2 and 4 want to join (S1,G), while Router 5 wants to join
(S4,G).
We assume that the PEs have the capability to store (S,G) states for
PIM-SSM snooping and constrain multicast flooding scope accordingly.
An implementation, can fall back to (*,G) states, if its hardware can
not support it. In such case, the efficiency of multicast forwarding
will be less.
[Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
5.4.4.1 Discovering Multicast Routers
The PIM-SSM snooping mechanism for neighbor discovery works the same
way as the procedure defined in PIM-DM section, with the exception of
PIM-DM only guidelines.
- Based on PIM Hello exchanges PE routers populate PIM snooping
states as follows. PE 1: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router
2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]},
PE 3: { [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: { [PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4),
(Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
5.4.4.2 Guidelines for PIM-SSM Snooping
PIM-SSM snooping is actually simpler than PIM-SM and only the
following guidelines (some of which are repetitions from PIM-SM
section) apply.
Guideline 28: A PE MUST add a PW/AC to its (S,G) pim_joins(S,G)
list if it receives a (S,G) join message from the PW/AC.
Guideline 29: PIM-SSM join messages MUST be sent only to the
remote PE, which is connected to the router to which the Join is
addressed.
JP_Optimization: The PE MUST forward the Join message towards the
upstream neighbor only if the pim_joins(S,G) list becomes non-
empty as a result of the received join. If the pim_joins(S,G)
list was non-empty prior to receiving the join message, then the
PE MUST NOT forward the join message.
Guideline 30: PIM prune messages MUST be flooded in the VPLS
instance. A prune-delay timer SHOULD be implemented to support
prune override on the downstream AC/PW. However, the prune-delay
timer is not required if there is only one PIM neighbor on that
AC/PW on which the prune was received.
JP_Optimization: Instead of flooding the prune message in the VPLS
instance, the PE MUST forward the prune message towards the
upstream neighbor only if the pim_joins(S,G) list becomes empty as
a result of the received prune. If the pim_joins(S,G) list
remains non-empty after receiving the prune message, then the PE
MUST NOT forward the prune message.
Guideline 31: If A PE does not receive a refresh join message from
a PW/AC within its Holdtime, the PE MUST remove the PW/AC from its
pim_joins(S,G) list.
[Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Guideline 32: A PE MUST remove a PW/AC from its pim_joins(S,G)
list if it receives a (S,G) prune message from the PW/AC. A
prune-delay timer SHOULD be implemented to support prune override.
5.4.4.3 PIM-SSM Join
The PIM-SSM snooping mechanism for joining a multicast group works as
follows:
- Assume Router 2 requests to join the multicast group (S1,G).
- PE 2 updates its state, and then sends the join message to PE
1.
- All PEs update their states as follows: PE 1:
{[pim_joins(S1,G): PW1to2], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[pim_joins(S1,G): AC2], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router
4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router
5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
- Next, assume Router 4 sends a join (S1,G) message. Following
the same procedures, all PEs update their states as follows: PE
1: {[pim_joins(S1,G): PW1to2, PW1to3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[pim_joins(S1,G): AC2], [PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router
4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[pim_joins(S1,G): AC4],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3),
(Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router
4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
- Then, assume Router 5 requests to join the multicast group
(S4,G). After the same procedures are applied, all PEs update
their states as follows: PE 1: {[pim_joins(S1,G): PW1to2,
PW1to3], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router
3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2:
{[pim_joins(S1,G): AC2], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2),
(Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router
5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[pim_joins(S1,G): AC4], [pim_joins(S4,G):
PW3to4], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4:
{[pim_joins(S4,G): AC5], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router
5,AC5)]}.
[Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
5.4.4.4 PIM-SSM Prune
At this point, all PEs have necessary states to not send multicast
traffic to sites with no members.
The PIM-SSM snooping mechanism for leaving a multicast group works as
follows:
Assume Router 2 sends a (S1,G) prune message to leave the multicast
group. The prune message gets flooded in the VPLS instance. All PEs
update their states as follows: PE 1: {[pim_joins(S1,G): PW1to3],
[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router
4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router
5,PW2to4)]}, PE 3: {[pim_joins(S1,G): AC4], [(S4,G); Flood to:
PW3to4], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4:
{[pim_joins(S4,G): AC5], [PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
In PIM-SSM snooping, prune messages are flooded by PE routers. In
such implementation, PE routers may receive overriding join messages,
which will not affect anything.
5.4.4.5 Failure Scenarios
Similar to PIM-SSM snooping, failures can be easily handled in PIM-
SSM snooping, as it employs state-refresh technique. The PEs in the
VPLS instance will remove entry for non-refreshing routers from their
states.
5.4.4.6 Special Cases for PIM-SSM Snooping
The scenarios with duplicate traffic as depicted in Figure 3 apply to
PIM-SSM snooping as well. Again, the issue can be solved by the
method described in Section 5.4.3.8.
5.4.5 Bidirectional-PIM (BIDIR-PIM)
BIDIR-PIM 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 BIDIR-PIM.
- Multicast traffic can flow up the shared tree in BIDIR-PIM.
- To avoid forwarding loops, one router on each link is elected
as the Designated Forwarder (DF) for each RP in BIDIR-PIM.
The main advantage of BIDIR-PIM 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.
5.4.5.1 Discovering Multicast Routers
The PIM-SSM snooping mechanism for neighbor discovery works the same
way as the procedure defined in PIM-DM section, with the exception of
PIM-DM only guidelines.
[Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- Based on PIM Hello exchanges PE routers populate PIM snooping
states as follows. PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1),
(Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)]}, PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router
2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)]},
PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)]}, PE 4: {[PIM
Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4),
(Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)]}.
For BIDIR-PIM to work properly, all routers within the domain must
know the address of the RP. There are three methods to do that: 1.
Static RP configuration, 2, Auto-RP, and 3. PIMv2 Bootstrap.
Guideline 17 applies here as well.
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 the RP and the router
with the best route is elected.
Guideline 33: All PEs MUST snoop the DF election messages and
determine the DF for each [(*,G),RP] (i.e., RP(G)) pair. The
AC/PW towards the DF (i.e., DF(RP)) MUST be added to the
pim_oiflist for each (*,G) whose RP(G) is RP. When DF(RP)
changes, the pim_oiflist must be updated accordingly.
- In Figure 2, there is one RP (letĘs call it RPA) behind Router
5. Based on DF election messages, PE routers populate PIM
snooping states as follows: PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)], [DF(RPA): PW1to3], PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3),
(Router 5,PW2to4)], [DF(RPA): PW2to3]}, PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4),
(Router 5,PW3to4)], [DF(RPA): AC5]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router
4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)], [DF(RPA): PW3to4]}.
5.4.5.2 Guidelines for BIDIR-PIM Snooping
The BIDIR-PIM snooping for Join and Prune messages is similar to
PIM-SM and the following guidelines (some of which are repetitions
from PIM-SM section) apply.
Guideline 34: A PE MUST add a PW/AC to its pim_joins(*,G) list if
it receives a (*,G) join message from the PW/AC.
[Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Guideline 35: BIDIR-PIM join messages MUST be flooded to all PEs
in the VPLS instance. BIDIR-PIM join messages received on remote
PEs MUST be forwarded only towards the router to which the Join is
addressed.
Guideline 36: BIDIR-PIM prune messages MUST be flooded in the VPLS
instance.
Guideline 37: If A PE does not receive a refresh join message from
a PW/AC within its Holdtime, the PE MUST remove the PW/AC from its
pim_joins(*,G) list.
Guideline 38: A PE MUST remove a PW/AC from its pim_joins(*,G)
list if it receives a (*,G) prune message from the PW/AC. A
prune-delay timer SHOULD be implemented to support prune override.
5.4.5.3 BIDIR-PIM Join
The BIDIR-PIM snooping mechanism for joining a multicast group works
as follows:
- As before, assume the RP for both G1 and G4 (RPA) is behind
Router 4. Assume Router 2 wants to join the multicast group
(*,G1). PE 2 sends the join message to the other PEs. All PEs
update their states as follows: PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router
5,PW1to4)], [DF(RPA): PW1to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW1to2]}, PE
2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router
3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)], [DF(RPA):
PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): AC2]}, PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4),
(Router 5,PW3to4)], [DF(RPA): AC4], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to3]},
PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)], [DF(RPA):
PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to4]}.
- Next, assume Router 4 wants to join the multicast group (*,G1).
All PEs update their states as follows: PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3),
(Router 5,PW1to4)], [DF(RPA): PW1to3], [pim_joins(*,G1):
PW1to2, PW1to3]}, PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2),
(Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router
5,PW2to4)], [DF(RPA): PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): AC2, PW2to3},
PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router
3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)], [DF(RPA): AC4],
pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to3, AC4]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4),
(Router 5,AC5)], [DF(RPA): PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to4,
PW3to4]}.
[Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
- Then, assume Router 5 wants to join the multicast group (*,G4).
Following the same procedures, all PEs update their states as
follows: PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router
2,Router 3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)],
[DF(RPA): PW1to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW1to2, PW1to3],
[pim_joins(*,G4): PW1to4]}, PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2), (Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3),
(Router 5,PW2to4)], [DF(RPA): PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): AC2,
PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G4): PW2to4]}, PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors:
(Router 1,PW1to3), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4),
(Router 5,PW3to4)], [DF(RPA): AC4], pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to3,
AC4], pim_joins(*,G4): PW3to4]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router
1,PW1to4), (Router 2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4),
(Router 5,AC5)], [DF(RPA): PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to4,
PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G4): AC5]}.
5.4.5.4 BIDIR-PIM Prune
At this point, all PEs have necessary states to not send multicast
traffic to sites with no members.
One example of the BIDIR-PIM snooping mechanism for leaving a
multicast group works as follows:
- Assume Router 2 wants to leave the multicast group (*,G1) and
sends a (*,G1) prune message. The prune message gets flooded
in the VPLS instance. All PEs update their states as follows:
PE 1: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,AC1), (Router 2,Router
3,PW1to2), (Router 4,PW1to3), (Router 5,PW1to4)], [DF(RPA):
PW1to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW1to3], [pim_joins(*,G4): PW1to4]},
PE 2: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to2), (Router 2,AC2),
(Router 3,AC3), (Router 4,PW2to3), (Router 5,PW2to4)],
[DF(RPA): PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW2to3], [pim_joins(*,G4):
PW2to4]}, PE 3: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to3), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to3), (Router 4,AC4), (Router 5,PW3to4)],
[DF(RPA): AC4], [pim_joins(*,G1): AC1], [pim_joins(*,G4):
PW3to4]}, PE 4: {[PIM Neighbors: (Router 1,PW1to4), (Router
2,Router 3,PW2to4), (Router 4,PW3to4), (Router 5,AC5)],
[DF(RPA): PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G1): PW3to4], [pim_joins(*,G4):
AC5]}.
5.4.5.5 Failure Scenarios
Once again, failures can be easily handled in BIDIR-PIM snooping, as
it employs state-refresh technique. PEs in the VPLS instance will
remove entry for non-refreshing routers from their states.
5.4.6 Multicast Source Directly Connected to the VPLS Instance
If there is a source in the CE network that connects directly into
the VPLS instance, then multicast traffic from that source MUST be
[Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
sent to all PIM routers on the VPLS instance apart from the outgoing
interface list for the corresponding snooping state. If there is
already (S,G)/(*,G) snooping state that is formed on any PE, this
will not happen per the current forwarding rules and guidelines. The
(S,G)/(*,G) state may not send traffic towards all the routers. 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.
5.4.7 Data Forwarding Rules
The final list of outgoing interfaces for a given (S,G) or (*,G) is
computed by combining the IGMP and PIM state summarization macros.
oifList(*,G) = igmp_include(*,G) (+) pim_oiflist(*,G)
oiflist(S,G) = igmp_include(*,G) (-) igmp_exclude(S,G) (+)
igmp_include(S,G) (+) pim_oiflist(S,G)
If PIM Snooping is active for a given (*,G) or (S,G), then the PE
also tracks the upstream AC/PW as the RPF interface. Data traffic
MUST be forwarded ONLY IF traffic arrives on the RPF interface. If
data traffic arrives on any other interface, then the following rules
apply:
- If the traffic arrives on an AC and the PE determines that the
traffic is coming from a directly connected source, then the
rules described in Section 5.4.6 apply.
- Otherwise, it could be a PIM ASSERT scenario. Then the rules
described in Section 5.4.3.8 apply.
In the presence of only IGMP Snooping state, there is no RPF
interface that can be remembered. In such a scenario, traffic should
simply be forwarded to the pim_oiflist after performing source
interface pruning.
5.4.8 PIM Snooping at PWs Overwhelm PEs
In [MVPN-VPLS], it is commented that PIM snooping (due to refreshing
scheme) in PWs will overwhelm PEs. To address this issue, we provide
a proposal in this section.
[Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Although PIM refresh reduction is under consideration, PEs are
RECOMMENEDED to implement this scheme, as CEs need not change, and
PEs will not depend on CEs to turn refresh reduction on. Only the
PEs need to implement this scheme. Note this scheme is trying to
take care of Refresh reduction only. If all the states are
continuously flapping, then VPLS has to deal with it irrespective of
which solution is used for refresh reduction.
In order to prevent control traffic explosion in the core, the PEs
can be configured to not exceed a threshold which represents the
aggregate amount of PIM refresh traffic that can be generated in the
core. Since the PEs are fully meshed, the PEs can determine their
individual rate by dividing the threshold by the number of PEs in the
mesh. This gives the amount of PIM refresh traffic that a PE can
generate in the core. Once we have this number (call it the
tx_threshold), we proceed in the following fashion.
For every PIM Join/Prune PDU received by a PE from the access side
(i.e., AC), the PE will modify the holdtime to a large value
(possibly even infinity) before sending out into the core. The
holdtime, call it core_holdtime, can be configured OR can be
adaptively computed based on the number of entries the PE has. The
core_holdtime ensures that the core side (all the relevant PEs and
the CEs connected to them) will not time out the state as fast as an
access side upstream router would, in the absence of a Join refresh.
The PE will also keep track of when the holdtimer will expire in the
core for an entry (call this the core_holdtimer). A typical value of
the core_holdtime would be something like 10-20 times the received
holdtime in the PDU. The core_holdtime is jittered across PDUs so
that all of them do not fire at once (all entries in a PDU get the
same core_holdtime).
Once this is done, for every entry that has a core_holdtimer running,
the PE will not send any refreshes that it receives from the access
side, into the core, if the following condition is satisfied:
The core_holdtimer will expire at a time that is greater than twice
the holdtime encoded in the Join/Prune PDU received from the access
(this is an arbitrary multiplier, call it X). If the core_holdtime
will expire at a time that is less than X times the holdtime encoded
in the Join/Prune PDU received from the access, AND if the PE can
send a JP PDU (because it will not exceed the tx_threshold), only
then the PE will propagate the refresh into the core, again with the
holdtime modified to the core_holdtime. If it canĘt because it would
exceed the tx_threshold, it will wait for the next refresh as long as
X is greater than 1. If X is 1, then it will propagate the refresh
irrespective of whether the tx_threshold will exceed or not. The
idea here is that if X is reasonable enough, then it will get a
chance to send out the refresh without exceeding the threshold most
of the times.
To take care of the possibility of Join/Prune PDUs getting lost, we
could have a configured robustness variable R like in IGMP for the
[Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
VPLS instance (possibly even per PW). This simply means that we will
propagate the Joins R times into the core instead of 1, before we
skip propagating them when they arrive.
The hold time is modified only when there is at least one of the
following in the PDU:
- (*,G) Join, (S,G) Join or (S,G,rpt) Prune, since these are the
states that are refreshed.
- (*,G) Prune, (S,G) Prune and (S,G,rpt) Join are not refreshed
in PIM and are used only to deregister state, so the holdtime
modification does not apply to these.
Corresponding to every entry that a PE creates upon receiving a Join
from an AC, the PE maintains an upstream state which consists of:
1) Upstream PW (defined in the previous sections)
2) Upstream neighbor (defined in the previous sections)
3) core_holdtimer
Once this state is created due to a downstream state received on an
AC, the PE takes no action with respect to the upstream state if it
receives Joins for the same state from other ACs. Since the upstream
PW has already been notified, there is no need to propagate those
Joins towards the PW.
If a CE on an AC sends a Join causing the upstream state to be
created and the downstream state times out (due to not seeing a Join
from the CE again), and if that is the only downstream state, then
the PE will simulate a Prune towards the PW by using any AC neighbor
as the source IP of the Prune packet. This ensures that the core
side will time out the state immediately. Same thing applies to
(S,G,rpt) Joins.
Core_holdtime determination (optional): As mentioned earlier, a PE
can adaptively determine the value of core_holdtime it should use,
based on the number of entries it has on the AC side. For example,
if a PE has 1000 entries, and its tx_threshold is 10 packets per
second, and assuming a worst case of 1 Join/Prune entry per
Join/Prune PDU, it is safe to say that if every 60 seconds, the PE
receives a refresh for all 1000 entries and it propagates only 10 of
them (unique), it will take 60 * 100 seconds for all the entries to
be refreshed i.e. 100 minutes. A reasonable value of core holdtime
then can be used as 1.25 * 6000 = 7500 seconds. X above can be
chosen to be 25 or 50. If you assume a better case, say 50 entries
per Join/Prune PDU, 1000 entries would take 20 PDUs i.e. 120 seconds.
So a core_holdtime of 1.25 * 120 = 150 seconds with X = 2 might do.
The basic idea being, it would refresh more often if there are less
entries, and less often if there are more entries. Or the
core_holdtime could be simply configured to keep it simple.
The scheme can be extended to PIM Hellos as well wherein we modify
the holdtime sent in hellos towards the PWs. If an adjacency times
[Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
out, PE can simulate a Hello and send it out towards the PW with a
holdtime of 0.
6 Security Considerations
Security considerations provided in VPLS solution documents (i.e.,
[VPLS-LDP] and [VPLS-BGP) apply to this document as well.
7 References
7.1 Normative References
7.2 Informative References
[VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M, et al. "Virtual Private LAN Services
over MPLS", work in progress
[VPLSD-BGP] Kompella, K, et al. "Virtual Private LAN Service",
work in progress
[L2VPN-FR] Andersson, L, et al. "L2VPN Framework", work in
progress
[PMP-RSVP-TE] Aggarwal, R, et al. "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point
to Multipoint TE LSPs", work in progress
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
Version 2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., et al. "Internet Group Management
Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[MAGMA-SNOOP] Christensen, M., et al. "Considerations for IGMP and
MLD Snooping Switches", work in progress
[PIM-DM] Deering, S., et al. "Protocol Independent Multicast
Version 2 ū Dense Mode Specification", draft-ietf-
pim-v2-dm-03.txt, June 1999.
[RFC2362] Estrin, D, et al. "Protocol Independent Multicast-
Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC
2362, June 1998.
[PIM-SSM] Holbrook, H., et al. "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", work in progress
[BIDIR-PIM] Handley, M., et al. "Bi-directional Protocol
Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", work in progress
[MVPN-VPLS]] Aggarwal, R., et al. "Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs and
VPLS", work in progress
8 Authors' Addresses
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
[Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
Ray.Qiu@alcatel.com
Venu Hemige
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Venu.hemige@alcatel.com
Rob Nath
Riverstone Networks
5200 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Rnath@riverstonenet.com
Suresh Boddapati
Alcatel North America
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Suresh.boddapati@alcatel.com
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
9 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
[Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-02.txt February, 2005
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.
10 Full copyright statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
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 41]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:02:02 |