draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-11.txt		draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-12.txt
	Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola		Internet Engineering Task Force P. Savola
	Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET		Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET
	Obsoletes: 3913,2189,2201,1584 October 13, 2007		Intended status: Best Current October 17, 2007
	(if approved)
	Intended status: Best Current
	Practice		Practice
	Expires: April 15, 2008		Expires: April 19, 2008
	Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture		Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture
	draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-11.txt		draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-12.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37		skipping to change at page 1, line 35
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2008.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes multicast routing architectures that are		This document describes multicast routing architectures that are
	currently deployed on the Internet. This document briefly describes		currently deployed on the Internet. This document briefly describes
	those protocols and references their specifications.		those protocols and references their specifications.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 10		skipping to change at page 3, line 6
	2.7.2. Host/Router Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		2.7.2. Host/Router Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	2.7.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		2.7.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions . . . . . . . 24		Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions . . . . . . . 24
	A.1. Reliable Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		A.1. Reliable Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	A.2. Multicast Group Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		A.2. Multicast Group Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26		Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document provides a brief overview of multicast routing		This document provides a brief overview of multicast routing
	architectures that are currently deployed on the Internet and how		architectures that are currently deployed on the Internet and how
	those protocols fit together. It also describes those multicast		those protocols fit together. It also describes those multicast
	routing protocols that were never widely deployed or have fallen into		routing protocols that were never widely deployed or have fallen into
	disuse. A companion document [I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch] describes		disuse. A companion document [I-D.ietf-mboned-addrarch] describes
	skipping to change at page 7, line 25		skipping to change at page 7, line 25
	protocol. PIM-DM is no longer in widespread use.		protocol. PIM-DM is no longer in widespread use.
	Many implementations also support so-called "sparse-dense"		Many implementations also support so-called "sparse-dense"
	configuration, where Sparse mode is used by default, but Dense is		configuration, where Sparse mode is used by default, but Dense is
	used for configured multicast group ranges (such as Auto-RP in		used for configured multicast group ranges (such as Auto-RP in
	Section 2.4.3) only. Lately, many networks have transitioned away		Section 2.4.3) only. Lately, many networks have transitioned away
	from sparse-dense to only sparse mode.		from sparse-dense to only sparse mode.
	2.1.3. Bi-directional PIM		2.1.3. Bi-directional PIM
	Bi-directional PIM [I-D.ietf-pim-bidir] is a multicast forwarding		Bi-directional PIM [RFC5015] is a multicast forwarding protocol that
	protocol that establishes a common shared-path for all sources with a		establishes a common shared-path for all sources with a single root.
	single root. It can be used as an alternative to PIM-SM inside a		It can be used as an alternative to PIM-SM inside a single domain.
	single domain. It doesn't have data-driven events or data-		It doesn't have data-driven events or data-encapsulation. As it
	encapsulation. As it doesn't keep source-specific state, it may be		doesn't keep source-specific state, it may be an appealing approach
	an appealing approach especially in sites with a large number of		especially in sites with a large number of sources.
	sources.
	As of this writing, there is no inter-domain solution to configure a		As of this writing, there is no inter-domain solution to configure a
	group range to use bi-directional PIM.		group range to use bi-directional PIM.
	2.1.4. DVMRP		2.1.4. DVMRP
	Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [RFC1075]		Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) [RFC1075]
	[I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3] [I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as] was the first		[I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3] [I-D.ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as] was the first
	protocol designed for multicasting. To get around initial deployment		protocol designed for multicasting. To get around initial deployment
	hurdles, it also included tunneling capabilities which were part of		hurdles, it also included tunneling capabilities which were part of
	skipping to change at page 19, line 31		skipping to change at page 19, line 31
	3. Acknowledgements		3. Acknowledgements
	Tutoring a couple multicast-related papers, the latest by Kaarle		Tutoring a couple multicast-related papers, the latest by Kaarle
	Ritvanen [RITVANEN] convinced the author that up-to-date multicast		Ritvanen [RITVANEN] convinced the author that up-to-date multicast
	routing and address assignment/allocation documentation is necessary.		routing and address assignment/allocation documentation is necessary.
	Leonard Giuliano, James Lingard, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Dave Meyer,		Leonard Giuliano, James Lingard, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Dave Meyer,
	Stig Venaas, Tom Pusateri, Marshall Eubanks, Dino Farinacci, Bharat		Stig Venaas, Tom Pusateri, Marshall Eubanks, Dino Farinacci, Bharat
	Joshi, Albert Manfredi, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Spencer Dawkins, Sharon		Joshi, Albert Manfredi, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, Spencer Dawkins, Sharon
	Chisholm, John Zwiebel, Dan Romascanu, Thomas Morin, Ron Bonica, and		Chisholm, John Zwiebel, Dan Romascanu, Thomas Morin, Ron Bonica,
	Prashant Jhingran provided good comments, helping in improving this		Prashant Jhingran, and Tim Polk provided good comments, helping in
	document.		improving this document.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to update the following registries by adding a		IANA is requested to update the following registries by adding a
	reference to this document:		reference to this document:
	o OSPFv2 Option registry: MC-bit		o OSPFv2 Option registry: MC-bit
	o OSPFv2 Link state type: Group-membership-LSA		o OSPFv2 Link state type: Group-membership-LSA
	skipping to change at page 20, line 25		skipping to change at page 20, line 25
	mentioned protocols is out of scope of this memo.		mentioned protocols is out of scope of this memo.
	However, there has been analysis of the security of multicast routing		However, there has been analysis of the security of multicast routing
	infrastructures [RFC4609], IGMP/MLD [I-D.daley-magma-smld-prob], and		infrastructures [RFC4609], IGMP/MLD [I-D.daley-magma-smld-prob], and
	PIM last-hop issues [I-D.ietf-pim-lasthop-threats].		PIM last-hop issues [I-D.ietf-pim-lasthop-threats].
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-pim-bidir]
	Handley, M., "Bi-directional Protocol Independent
	Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", draft-ietf-pim-bidir-09 (work in
	progress), February 2007.
	[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision		[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
	3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.		3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
	[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.		[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
	Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version		Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
	3", RFC 3376, October 2002.		3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
	[RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery		[RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery
	Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.		Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.
	skipping to change at page 21, line 16		skipping to change at page 21, line 11
	IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.		IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
	[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,		[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
	"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,		"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
	January 2007.		January 2007.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, June 2007.		RFC 4915, June 2007.
			[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
			"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
			PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
	6.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[802.1ak] "IEEE 802.1ak - Multiple Registration Protocol",		[802.1ak] "IEEE 802.1ak - Multiple Registration Protocol",
	<http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1ak.html>.		<http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1ak.html>.
	[CGMP] "Cisco Group Management Protocol",		[CGMP] "Cisco Group Management Protocol",
	<http://www.javvin.com/protocolCGMP.html>.		<http://www.javvin.com/protocolCGMP.html>.
	[GMRP] "GARP Multicast Registration Protocol",		[GMRP] "GARP Multicast Registration Protocol",
	<http://www.javvin.com/protocolGMRP.html>.		<http://www.javvin.com/protocolGMRP.html>.
	skipping to change at page 23, line 39		skipping to change at page 23, line 39
	[RFC3488] Wu, I. and T. Eckert, "Cisco Systems Router-port Group		[RFC3488] Wu, I. and T. Eckert, "Cisco Systems Router-port Group
	Management Protocol (RGMP)", RFC 3488, February 2003.		Management Protocol (RGMP)", RFC 3488, February 2003.
	[RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security		[RFC3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
	Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004.		Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004.
	[RFC3913] Thaler, D., "Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP):		[RFC3913] Thaler, D., "Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP):
	Protocol Specification", RFC 3913, September 2004.		Protocol Specification", RFC 3913, September 2004.
	[RFC3940] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
	"Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable
	Multicast (NORM) Protocol", RFC 3940, November 2004.
	[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol		[RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
	Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol		Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol
	Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.		Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005.
	[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",		[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",
	RFC 4286, December 2005.		RFC 4286, December 2005.
	[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,		[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
	"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol		"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
	(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping		(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
	skipping to change at page 24, line 29		skipping to change at page 24, line 25
	[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol		[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
	Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.		Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.
	[RITVANEN]		[RITVANEN]
	Ritvanen, K., "Multicast Routing and Addressing", HUT		Ritvanen, K., "Multicast Routing and Addressing", HUT
	Report, Seminar on Internetworking, May 2004,		Report, Seminar on Internetworking, May 2004,
	<http://www.tml.hut.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/>.		<http://www.tml.hut.fi/Studies/T-110.551/2004/papers/>.
	Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions		Appendix A. Multicast Payload Transport Extensions
	A couple of mechanisms have been, and are being specified, to improve		A couple of mechanisms have been specified to improve the
	the characteristics of the data that can be transported over		characteristics of the data that can be transported over multicast.
	multicast.
	These go beyond the scope of multicast routing, but as reliable		We describe those mechanisms that have impact on the multicast
	multicast has some relevance, these are briefly mentioned.		routing infrastructure, e.g., require or specify router assistance or
			involvement in some form. Purely end-to-end or host-based protocols
			are out of scope.
	A.1. Reliable Multicast		A.1. Reliable Multicast
	Reliable Multicast Working Group has been working on mostly		There has been some work on reliable multicast delivery so that
	experimental specifications so that applications requiring reliable		applications with reliability requirements could use multicast
	delivery characteristics, instead of simple unreliable UDP, could use		instead of simple unreliable UDP.
	multicast as a distribution mechanism.
	One such mechanism is Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) [RFC3208].		Most of the mechanisms are host-based and as such out of scope of
	This does not require support from the routers, bur PGM-aware routers		this document, but one relevant from multicast routing perspective is
	may act in router assistance role in the initial delivery and		Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) [RFC3208]. It does not require
	potential retransmission of missing data. Another mechanism is		support from the routers, bur PGM-aware routers may act in router
	Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast Protocol		assistance role in the initial delivery and potential retransmission
	(NORM) [RFC3940] where routers may as an optional feature provide a		of missing data.
	more efficient repair functionality.
	A.2. Multicast Group Security		A.2. Multicast Group Security
	Multicast Security Working Group has been working on methods how the		Multicast Security Working Group has been working on methods how the
	integrity, confidentiality, and authentication of data sent to		integrity, confidentiality, and authentication of data sent to
	multicast groups can be ensured using cryptographic techniques		multicast groups can be ensured using cryptographic techniques
	[RFC3740].		[RFC3740].
	Author's Address		Author's Address
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	42 lines changed or deleted		33 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/