Network Working Group | Dino Farinacci |
Internet-Draft | Greg Shepherd |
Intended status: Experimental Protocol | Yiqun Cai |
Expires: July 28, 2012 | Stig Venaas |
cisco Systems | |
January 27, 2012 |
Population Count Extensions to PIM
draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-05.txt
This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 [RFC2119].
This draft proposes a mechanism to convey accounting information using the PIM protocol [RFC4601] [RFC5015]. Putting the mechanism in PIM allows efficient distribution and maintenance of such accounting information. Previous mechanisms require data to be correlated from multiple router sources.
This proposal allows a single router to be queried to obtain accounting and statistic information for a multicast distribution tree as a whole or any distribution sub-tree downstream from a queried router. The amount of information is fixed and does not increase as multicast membership, tree diameter, or branching increase.
The sort of accounting data this draft provides, on a per multicast route basis, are:
This draft adds a new PIM Join Attribute type [RFC5384] to the Join/Prune message as well as a new Hello TLV. The mechanism is applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 multicast.
This section defines the terms used in this draft.
Note that a link can be both a Stub Link and a Transit Link at the same time.
When a PIM router sends a Join/Prune message to a neighbor, it will encode the data in a new PIM Join Attribute type (described in this draft) when the PIM router determines the neighbor can support this draft. If a PIM router supports this draft, it must send the Pop-Count-Supported TLV. The format of the TLV is defined to be:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OptionType | OptionLength | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OptionValue | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OptionType = 29, OptionLength = 4, there is no OptionValue semantics defined at this time but will be included for expandability and be defined in future revisions of this draft. The format will look like:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 29 | 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unallocated Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When a PIM router supports this draft and has determined from a received Hello, the neighbor supports this draft, it will send Join/Prune messages that MAY include a Pop-Count attribute. The mechanism to process PIM Join Attribute is described in [RFC5384]. The format of the new attribute is described in the following.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F|E| Attr Type | Length | Effective MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Options Bitmap | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Options | . . . . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The above format is used only for entries in the join-list section of the Join/Prune message.
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unalloc/Reserved |P|a|t|A|S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A-flag S-flag Description ------ ------ ----------------------------------------- 0 0 There are no members for the group ('Stub Oif-List Count' is 0) 0 1 All group members are only SSM capable 1 0 All group members are only ASM capable 1 1 There is a mixture of SSM and ASM capable
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |T|s|m|M|d|n|D|z| Unalloc/Rsrvd | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
bit Option ----- ------------------------ T Transit Oif-List Count s Stub Oif-List Count m Minimum Speed Link M Maximum Speed Link d Domain Count n Node Count D Diameter Count z TZ Count
There are several options defined in this document. For each option, there is also a related flag that shows whether the option is present. See the Options Bitmap above for a list of the options and their respective bits. Each option has a fixed size.
The speed is encoded using 2 octets as follows:
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Exponent | Significand | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Here are some examples how this is used:
Link Speed Exponent Significand ------------ ---------- ------------- 500 kbps 0 500 500 kbps 2 5 155 Mbps 3 155 40 Gpbs 6 40 100 Gpbs 6 100 100 Gpbs 8 1
We will here give a few examples to illustrate the use of flags and options.
A minimum size message has no option flags set, and looks like this:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F|E| Attr Type | Length = 6 | Effective MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unalloc/Reserved |P|a|t|A|S|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| Unalloc/Rsrvd | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A message containing all the options defined in this document would look like this:
<figure> <preamble></preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F|E| Attr Type | Length = 18 | Effective MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unalloc/Reserved |P|a|t|A|S|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1| Unalloc/Rsrvd | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Transit Oif-List Count | Stub Oif-List Count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum Speed Link | Maximum Speed Link | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Domain Count | Node Count | Diameter Count| TZ Count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A message containing only Stub Oif-List Count and Node Count would look like this:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |F|E| Attr Type | Length = 9 | Effective MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unalloc/Reserved |P|a|t|A|S|0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0| Unalloc/Rsrvd | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stub Oif-List Count | Node count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A router supporting this draft MUST include PIM Join Attribute TLV in its PIM Hellos. See [RFC5384] and [HELLO] for details.
It is very important to note that any changes to the values maintained in this draft MUST NOT trigger a new Join/Prune message. Due to the periodic nature of PIM, the values can be accurately obtained at 1 minute intervals (or whatever Join/Prune interval used).
When a router removes a link from an oif-list, it must be able to reevaluate the values that it will advertise upstream. This happens when an oif-list entry is timed out or a Prune is received.
It is recommended that the Join Attribute defined in this draft be used for entries in the join-list part of the Join/Prune message. If the new encoding is used in the prune-list or an Assert message, an implementation must ignore them but still process the Prune as if it was in the original encoding described in [RFC4601].
It is also recommended that join suppression be disabled on a LAN when Pop-Count is used.
An implementation can decide how the accounting attributes are maintained. The values can be stored as part of the multicast route data structure by combining the local information it has with the joined information on a per oif basis. So when it is time to send a Join/Prune message, the values stored in the multicast route can be copied to the message.
Or, an implementation could store the accounting values per oif and when a Join/Prune message is sent, it can combine the oifs with its local information. Then the combined information can be copied to the message.
When a downstream joiner stops joining, accounting values cached must be evaluated. There are two approaches which can be taken. One is to keep values learned from each joiner so when the joiner goes away the count/max/min values are known and the combined value can be adjusted. The other approach is to set the value to 0 for the oif, and then start accumulating new values as subsequent Joins are received.
The same issue arises when an oif is removed from the oif-list. Keeping per-oif values allows you to adjust the per-route values when an oif goes away. Or, alternatively, a delay for reporting the new set a values from the route can occur while all oif values are zeroed (where accumulation of new values from subsequent Joins cause re-population of values and a new max/min/ count can be reevaluated for the route).
It is recommended that when triggered Join/Prune messages are sent by a downstream router, that the accounting information not be included in the message. This way when convergence is important, avoiding the processing time to build an accounting record in a downstream router and processing time to parse the message in the upstream router will help reduce convergence time. An upstream router should not interpret a Join/Prune message received with no accounting data to mean clearing or resetting what accounting data it has cached.
This draft requires each router on a multicast distribution tree to support this draft or else the accounting attributes for the tree will not be known.
However, if there are a contiguous set of routers downstream in the distribution tree, they can maintain accounting information for the sub-tree.
If there are a set of contiguous routers supporting this draft upstream on the multicast distribution tree, accounting information will be available but it will not represent an accurate assessment of the entire tree. Also, it will not be clear for how much of the distribution tree the accounting information covers.
A new PIM Hello Option type, 29, has been assigned. See [HELLO] for details.
A new PIM Join Attribute type needs to be assigned. 2 is proposed in this draft.
There are no security considerations for this design other than what is already in the main PIM specification [RFC4601].
The authors would like to thank John Zwiebel, Amit Jain, and Clayton Wagar for their review comments on the initial versions of this draft. Further review and comments were provided by Thomas Morin and Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang.
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC4601] | Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H. and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. |
[RFC5015] | Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T. and L. Vicisano, "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007. |
[RFC5384] | Boers, A., Wijnands, I. and E. Rosen, "The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC 5384, November 2008. |
[HELLO] | IANA, , "PIM Hello Options", PIM-HELLO-OPTIONS per RFC4601 http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-hello-options, March 2007. |
[AMT] | Thaler, D., Talwar, M., Aggarwal, A., Vicisano, L. and T. Pusateri, "Automatic IP Multicast Without Explicit Tunnels (AMT)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-11.txt, March 2010. |