Internet DRAFT - draft-asaeda-pim-multiif-igmpmldproxy
draft-asaeda-pim-multiif-igmpmldproxy
PIM H. Asaeda
Internet-Draft NICT
Intended status: Informational L. Contreras
Expires: 4 September 2024 Telefonica
3 March 2024
Multiple Upstream Interface Support for IGMP/MLD Proxy
draft-asaeda-pim-multiif-igmpmldproxy-07
Abstract
This document describes the way of supporting multiple upstream
interfaces for an IGMP/MLD proxy device. The proposed extension
enables an IGMP/MLD proxy device to receive multicast sessions/
channels through the different upstream interfaces. The upstream
interface can be selected based on multiple criteria, such as the
subscriber address prefixes, channel/session IDs, and interface
priority values. A mechanism for upstream interface takeover that
enables to switch from an inactive upstream interface to an active
upstream interface is also described.
Status of This Memo
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 https://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 4 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Upstream Selection Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Channel-Based Upstream Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Subscriber-Based Upstream Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Multiple Upstream Interface Selection for Robust Data
Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Candidate Upstream Interface Configuration . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Address Prefix Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Channel/Session ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Interface Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Default Upstream Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Upstream Interface Takeover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Proxy Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Active Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Dynamic Upstream Interface Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Signaling-based Upstream Interface Configuration . . . . 11
6.2. Controller-based Upstream Interface Configuration . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Consideration for Updating YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Summary of aspects requiring further discussion . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Summary of requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Proof of concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376][RFC5790] for
IPv4 and the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLD)
[RFC3810][RFC5790] for IPv6 are the standard protocols for hosts to
initiate joining or leaving of multicast sessions. A proxy device
performing IGMP/MLD-based forwarding (as known as IGMP/MLD proxy)
[RFC4605] maintains multicast membership information by IGMP/MLD
protocols on the downstream interfaces and sends IGMP/MLD membership
report messages via the upstream interface to the upstream multicast
routers when the membership information changes (e.g., by receiving
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
solicited/unsolicited report messages). The proxy device forwards
appropriate multicast packets received on its upstream interface to
each downstream interface based on the downstream receiver's
subscriptions.
According to the specification of [RFC4605], an IGMP/MLD proxy has _a
single_ upstream interface and one or more downstream interfaces.
The multicast forwarding tree must be manually configured by
designating upstream and downstream interfaces on an IGMP/MLD proxy
device, and the root of the tree is expected to be connected to a
wider multicast infrastructure. An IGMP/MLD proxy device hence
performs the router portion of the IGMP or MLD protocol on its
downstream interfaces, and the host portion of IGMP/MLD on its
upstream interface. The proxy device must not perform the router
portion of IGMP/MLD on its upstream interface.
On the other hand, there is a scenario in which an IGMP/MLD proxy
device enables multiple upstream interfaces and receives multicast
packets through these interfaces. For example, a proxy device having
more than one interface may want to access to different networks,
such as a global network like the Internet and local-scope networks.
Or, a proxy device having wired link (e.g., Ethernet) and high-speed
wireless link (e.g., 5G) may want to have the capability to connect
to the Internet through both links. These proxy devices shall
receive multicast packets from the different upstream interfaces and
forward to the downstream interface(s).
This document describes the way of enabling an IGMP/MLD proxy device
to receive multicast sessions/channels through the different upstream
interfaces. The upstream interfaces can be configured either with
"channel-based upstream selection" or "subscriber-based upstream
selection" or both. By channel-based upstream selection, an IGMP/MLD
proxy device selects one or multiple upstream interface(s) from the
candidate upstream interfaces "on a per channel/session basis". By
subscriber-based upstream selection, an IGMP/MLD proxy device selects
one or multiple upstream interface(s) from the candidate upstream
interfaces "on a per subscriber/receiver basis".
When a proxy device transmits an IGMP/MLD report message, it examines
the source and multicast addresses in the records of the IGMP/MLD
report message. It then transmits the appropriate IGMP/MLD report
message(s) from the selected upstream interface(s). Based on this,
when a proxy device selects "one" upstream interface from the
candidate upstream interfaces per session/channel, it is possible to
enable "load balancing" per session/channel. Moreover, when a proxy
device selects "more than two" upstream interfaces from the candidate
upstream interfaces per session/channel, it potentially receives
duplicate (redundant) packets for the session/channel from the
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
different upstream interfaces simultaneously and provides "robust
data reception". Unlike the conventional approach [RFC4605], when a
proxy device specified in this document receives an IGMP/MLD report
message on the downstream interface(s), it examines the source and
multicast addresses in the records of the IGMP/MLD report message and
decides appropriate upstream interface(s). The decision defined in
this document is made by the configuration mentioned above, while a
dynamic upstream selection mechanism is introduced in another
document [I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config].
In general, a proxy device selects "one" upstream interface from the
candidate upstream interfaces per session/channel. It is also
possible to configure that a proxy device selects "more than two"
upstream interfaces from the candidate upstream interfaces per
session/channel. In that case, it potentially receives duplicate
(redundant) packets for the session/channel from the different
upstream interfaces simultaneously and provides "robust data
reception".
A mechanism for "upstream interface takeover" is also described in
this document; when the selected upstream interface is going down or
the state of the link attached to the upstream interface is inactive,
one of the other active candidate upstream interfaces takes over the
upstream interface (if configured). The potential timer value to
switch from an inactive upstream interface to an active upstream
interface from a list of candidate upstream interfaces is described
as the default value in this document. Operators may want to change
this timer value according to the network condition or other factors.
A "dynamic upstream selection" is a mechanism that selects an
appropriate upstream interface(s) for sessions/channels based on the
network and adjacent routers' conditions. It is briefly introduced
in this document whereas its detail specification as well as IGMP/MLD
protocol extension is described in
[I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config].
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In addition, the following terms are used in this document.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
* Selected upstream interface (or simply, upstream interface): A
proxy device's interface in the direction of the root of the
multicast forwarding tree. A proxy device performs the host
portion of IGMP/MLD on its upstream interfaces. An upstream
interface is selected from a list of candidate upstream
interfaces.
* Default upstream interface: A default upstream interface is the
upstream interface for multicast sessions/channels for which a
proxy device cannot choose other interfaces as the upstream
interface. A default upstream interface is configurable.
* Active upstream interface: An active upstream interface is the
upstream interface that has been receiving packets for specific
multicast sessions/channels during the pre-defined active
interval.
* Inactive upstream interface: An inactive upstream interface is the
interface that has not received packets for specific multicast
sessions/channels during the pre-defined active interval.
* Downstream interface: Each of a proxy device's interfaces that is
not in the direction of the root of the multicast forwarding tree.
A proxy device performs the router portion of IGMP/MLD on its
downstream interfaces.
* Candidate upstream interface: An interface that potentially
becomes an upstream interface of the proxy device. A list of
candidate upstream interfaces is configured with subscriber
address prefixes, channel/session IDs, and priority values on an
IGMP/MLD proxy device.
* Channel/session ID: Channel/session ID consists of source address
prefix and multicast address prefix for which a candidate upstream
interface supposes to be an upstream interface for specified
multicast sessions/channels. Both or either source address prefix
and/or multicast address prefix can be "null".
3. Upstream Selection Mechanism
3.1. Channel-Based Upstream Selection
An IGMP/MLD proxy device selects one or multiple upstream
interface(s) from the candidate upstream interfaces "per channel/
session" based on the "channel/session ID" configuration. This
mechanism is called "channel-based upstream selection" whose
configuration is explained in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. This
mechanism enables an IGMP/MLD proxy device to use one or multiple
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
upstream interface(s) from the candidate upstream interfaces "per
channel/session" based on the "channel/session ID" configuration (as
will be in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2).
3.2. Subscriber-Based Upstream Selection
An IGMP/MLD proxy device selects one or multiple upstream
interface(s) from the candidate upstream interfaces "per subscriber/
receiver". This is called "subscriber-based upstream selection". It
enables a proxy device to use one or multiple upstream interface(s)
per session/channel from the "candidate upstream interfaces" based on
the "subscriber address prefix" configuration (as will be in
Section 4.1).
3.3. Multiple Upstream Interface Selection for Robust Data Reception
When more than one candidate upstream interface is configured with
the same source and multicast addresses for the "channel/session
IDs", and "interface priority values" (as will be in Section 4.3) are
identical, these candidate upstream interfaces act as the upstream
interfaces for the sessions/channels and receive the packets
simultaneously. This multiple upstream interface selection
implements duplicate packet reception from redundant paths. It may
improve data reception quality or robustness for a session/channel,
as the same multicast data packets can come from different upstream
interfaces simultaneously. However, this robust data reception does
not guarantee that the packets come from disjoint paths. It only
configures that the adjacent upstream routers are different.
4. Candidate Upstream Interface Configuration
Candidate upstream interfaces are the interfaces from which an IGMP/
MLD proxy device selects as an upstream interface. The upstream
interface selection works with the configurations of "subscriber
address prefix", "channel/session ID", and "interface priority
value".
4.1. Address Prefix Record
An IGMP/MLD proxy device can configure the "subscriber address
prefix" and "channel/session ID" for each candidate upstream
interface.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
Channel/session ID consists of "source address prefix" and "multicast
address prefix". Subscriber address prefix and source address prefix
MUST be a valid unicast address prefix, and multicast address prefix
MUST be a valid multicast address prefix. A proxy selects an
upstream interface from its candidate upstream interfaces based on
the configuration of the following address prefix record:
(subscriber address prefix, (channel/session ID))
where channel/session ID includes:
(source address prefix, multicast address prefix)
The default values of these address prefixes are "null". Null source
address prefix represents the wildcard source address prefix, which
indicates any host. Null multicast address prefix represents the
wildcard multicast address prefix, which indicates the entire
multicast address range (i.e., '224.0.0.0/4' for IPv4 or 'ff00::/8'
for IPv6).
The candidate upstream interface having the configuration of
subscriber address prefix is prioritized. If network operators want
to assign a specific upstream interface for specific subscribers
without depending on source and multicast address prefixes, both
source and multicast addresses in the address prefix record is
configured "null".
If network operators want to select specific upstream interface(s)
without depending on subscriber address prefix, subscriber address
prefix in the address prefix record is configured "null".
4.2. Channel/Session ID
Channel/session ID configuration consists of source and multicast
address prefixes. Both/either source and/or multicast address may be
configured "null". A candidate upstream interface having non-null
source and multicast address configuration is prioritized for the
upstream interface selection. For example, if a proxy device has two
candidate upstream interfaces for the same multicast address prefix
and one of them has non-null source address configuration, then that
candidate upstream interface is selected for the source and multicast
address pair. The other candidate upstream interface is selected for
the configured multicast address prefix except the source address
configured by the prior interface.
Source address prefix configuration takes priority over multicast
address prefix configuration. For example, consider the case that an
IGMP/MLD proxy device has a configuration with source address prefix
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
S_p for the candidate upstream interface A and multicast address
prefix G_p for the candidate upstream interface B. When it deals
with an IGMP/MLD record whose source address, let's say S, is in the
range of S_p, and whose multicast address, let's say G, is in the
range of G_p, the proxy device selects the candidate upstream
interface A, which supports the source address prefix, as the
upstream interface, and transmits the (S,G) record via the interface
A.
In summary, there are options for selecting the appropriate upstream
interface as follows:
* Association of membership requests from a specific user,
identified by the source IP of the IGMP/MLD message, to a specific
upstream interface, meaning that all the multicast traffic for
that a user is received from a certain upstream interface. This
condition is prioritized first.
* Association of (S,G) to a specific upstream interface, meaning
that a user request for specific content delivered from a specific
source should be received from a certain upstream interface. This
condition is prioritized second.
* Association of (*,G) to a specific upstream interface, meaning
that a user request of given content, independently of the source
of that content, should be received from a certain upstream
interface. This condition is prioritized fourth.
* Association of (S,*) to a specific upstream interface, meaning
that all the requests from a certain user, independently of the
group identifying the content, should be received from a certain
upstream interface. This condition is prioritized third.
The same address prefix may be configured on different candidate
upstream interfaces. When the same address prefix is configured on
different candidate upstream interfaces, an upstream interface for
that address prefix is selected based on each interface priority
value (as will be in Section 4.3).
4.3. Interface Priority
An IGMP/MLD proxy device can configure the "interface priority" value
for each candidate upstream interface. The priority is indicated
with an integer value and is part of the configuration. Lower value
is lower priority and the default value of the interface priority is
zero.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
The interface priority value is reflected when neither the subscriber
address prefix nor the channel/session ID is configured as the
candidate upstream interface, or when multiple candidate upstream
interfaces configure the same channel/session ID without configuring
a subscriber address prefix. In these cases, the candidate upstream
interface with the highest priority is chosen as the upstream
interface. As stated in Section 3.3, if multiple candidates upstream
interfaces have the same priority value, these interfaces will act as
upstream interfaces for the configured channel/session ID and may
receive duplicate packets.
4.4. Default Upstream Interface
Operators can configure "a default upstream interface" for all
incoming sessions/channels in an IGMP/MLD proxy device. A default
upstream interface is used as the upstream interface, when candidate
upstream interfaces are not configured for subscriber address prefix,
channel/session ID, or interface priority value. A default upstream
interface is also used if a proxy device detects configuration
errors.
If a default upstream interface is not configured on an IGMP/MLD
proxy device, the candidate upstream interface whose IPv4/v6 address
is the highest is chosen as the default upstream interface.
5. Upstream Interface Takeover
5.1. Proxy Behavior
If a selected upstream interface is going down or inactive, or an
adjacent upstream router is not working, the upstream interface can
be disabled and the other active upstream interface listed in the
candidate upstream interfaces covering the same channel/session ID
can act as a new upstream interface. It recursively examines the
list of the candidate upstream interfaces (except the disabled
interface) and decides a new upstream interface from them. If no
active candidate upstream interfaces exist, the default upstream
interface takes its role.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
This function called "upstream interface takeover" is a function for
a proxy device to enable continuous multicast data reception. If a
proxy device detects the upstream interface is inactive, it uses
another candidate upstream interface whose priority is the highest
among the configured upstream interfaces. If another candidate
upstream interface is not configured, it uses the default upstream
interface. If a proxy device simultaneously uses more than two
upstream interfaces per session/channel, and one or some of these
upstream interface(s) is/are inactive, the proxy device can only use
the active interface or uses another candidate upstream interface as
specified above.
Network operators may want to keep out of use for the inactive
upstream interface(s). This causes, for example, when subscriber-
based upstream selection is configured, according to their accounting
policy (because the specific subscribers are planned to use the
specific upstream interface and cannot receive packets from other
upstream interfaces.) In that case, this upstream interface takeover
must be disabled, and the proxy device keeps using that interface as
the upstream interface for them (and waits for working the interface
later again). Therefore, whether the upstream interface takeover is
enabled or not on the proxy device must be configured by operators.
The condition whether the upstream adjacent router is active or not
can be decided by checking the link/interface condition on the proxy
device or detected by monitoring IGMP/MLD Query or PIM [RFC7761]
Hello message reception on the link. There are the cases that PIM is
not running on the link or IGMP/MLD Query messages are not always
transmitted by the upstream router (e.g., because of enabling the
explicit tracking function [I-D.ietf-pim-explicit-tracking]).
[I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config] discusses the way to detect link/
interface conditions.
5.2. Active Interval
Active interval is a period in which the selected upstream interface
on a proxy device keeps working. Active interval for each candidate
upstream interface may be configured. The active interval values are
different in the situation whether the network operators want to
trigger by either IGMP/MLD or PIM messages. The default active
interval to detect an inactive upstream interface is around twice of
IGMP/MLD General Query interval and PIM Hello interval; however,
further discussion is TBD.
6. Dynamic Upstream Interface Configuration
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
6.1. Signaling-based Upstream Interface Configuration
Operators may want a proxy device to dynamically configure the
upstream interface for specific multicast channels/sessions.
[I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config] describes a signaling-based
dynamic upstream interface configuration method to support multiple
upstream interfaces for IGMP/MLD proxies. The dynamic upstream
interface configuration is enabled when network operators set it up
on their proxy devices; however, if upstream interface(s) are
statically configured either with "channel-based upstream selection"
or "subscriber-based upstream selection", the static configuration
will be prioritized.
6.2. Controller-based Upstream Interface Configuration
A centralized controller can instruct a proxy device which upstream
interface is selected for certain multicast channels or users.
The controller should configure a default upstream interface for
those subscription requests that do not match an explicitly
configured behavior. In case of upstream interface failure, the
default upstream interface could take over the failed upstream to
provide redundancy.
To enable this manner of configuration, some control and management
interface has to be supported by the proxy in order to receive
configuration instructions from the controller.
The controller could interact with a number of proxies in the
network. Being a centralized element, it could take coordinated
decisions for managing all the multicast traffic in the network in a
coordinated manner.
7. Security Considerations
This document neither provides new functions nor modifies the
standard functions defined in [RFC3376][RFC3810][RFC5790]; hence
there is no additional security consideration provided for these
protocols. On the other hand, it may be possible to encounter DoS
attacks to make the function for upstream interface takeover stop if
attackers illegally sends IGMP/MLD Query or PIM Hello messages on a
LAN within a shorter period (i.e., before expiring the active
interval for the upstream interface). To bypass such threats, it is
recommended to capture the source addresses of IGMP/MLD Query or PIM
Hello message senders and check whether the addresses correspond to
the correct adjacent upstream routers. These considerations are TBD.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
8. Consideration for Updating YANG Model
About the IGMP/MLD YANG model proposed in [RFC9166], there is a
description of interfaces for IGMP (similar for MLD). Once this
document is officially approved, it will be necessary to update the
proposed YANG model to include all the information related to the
upstream interfaces defined in this document, and consider the
actions related to the dynamic upstream interface configuration as
mentioned in Section 6.
9. Summary of aspects requiring further discussion
We have the following open issues.
* Value of the default active interval to detect an inactive
upstream interface (Section 5.2).
* Interaction with signaling methods (i.e., IGMP/MLD messages) for
configuring the upstream interface(s) (Section 6).
* Security threats from potential DoS attacks (Section 7).
They will be discussed in the future revisions of this document.
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions required.
11. Acknowledgements
TBD.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
[I-D.contreras-pim-multiif-config]
Contreras, L. M. and H. Asaeda, "Signaling-based
configuration for supporting multiple upstream interfaces
in IGMP/MLD proxies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-contreras-pim-multiif-config-01, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
pim-multiif-config-01>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-explicit-tracking]
Asaeda, H., "IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking
Function for Multicast Routers", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13, 1
November 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs]
Contreras, L. M., Bernardos, C. J., Asaeda, H., and N.
Leymann, "Requirements for the extension of the IGMP/MLD
proxy functionality to support multiple upstream
interfaces", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-08, 9 November 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
multiple-upstreams-reqs-08>.
[ICIN] "D. Fernández, L. M. Contreras, R. F. Moyano and S.
García, "NFV/SDN Based Multiple Upstream Interfaces
Multicast Proxy Service," 2021 24th Conference on
Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops
(ICIN), Paris, France, 2021, pp. 159-163.", 2021.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC9166] Zhao, H., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Peter, A., and M. Sivakumar,
"A YANG Data Model for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping",
RFC 9166, DOI 10.17487/RFC9166, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9166>.
Appendix A. Summary of requirements
The following table summarizes the requirements for the extension of
the IGMP/MLD proxy functionality to support multiple upstream
interfaces as previously stated in
[I-D.ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs]. The solution described in
this document is designed based on these requirements.
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Functio- | Multicast | Multicast | Load | Network | Network |
|nality | Wholesale | Resiliency| Balancing | Merging | Migration |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Upstream | | | | | |
|Control | X | X | X | X | X |
|Delivery | | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Downstr. | | | | | |
|Control | X | X | X | X | X |
|Delivery | | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Active / | | | | | |
|Standby | | X | | | |
|Upstream | | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Upstr i/f| | | | | |
|selection| | | X | X | |
|per group| | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|Upstr i/f| | | | | |
|selection| | X | | | X |
|all group| | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | | | | | |
| ASM | X | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | | | | | |
| SSM | X | X | X | | X |
| | | | | | |
+---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
Figure 1: Summary of requirements
For a more detailed description on the need for the listed
requirements, the reader is referred to
[I-D.ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs].
Appendix B. Proof of concept
The support of multiple upstream interfaces for IGMP/MLD Proxy has
been experimentally implemented following the controller-based
configuration approach. The implementation has been based on Linux
using an SDN application running over Ryu controller. Such
application is able to control by means of OpenFlow from the
controller an Open vSwitch which is in charge of relaying the
downstream multicast data flows and the upstream IGMP/MLD control
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multiple Upstream for IGMP/MLD Proxy March 2024
traffic. The proof of concept is fully described in [ICIN].
Authors' Addresses
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Asaeda & Contreras Expires 4 September 2024 [Page 16]
