Internet DRAFT - draft-eckert-pim-rts-forwarding
draft-eckert-pim-rts-forwarding
PIM T. Eckert, Ed.
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies USA
Intended status: Experimental M. Menth
Expires: 5 September 2024 S. Lindner
University of Tuebingen
4 March 2024
Stateless Multicast Replication with Segment Routed Recursive Tree
Structures (RTS)
draft-eckert-pim-rts-forwarding-01
Abstract
BIER provides stateless multicast in BIER domains using bitstrings to
indicate receivers. BIER-TE extends BIER with tree engineering
capabilities. Both suffer from scalability problems in large
networks as bitstrings are of limited size so the BIER domains need
to be subdivided using set identifiers so that possibly many packets
need to be sent to reach all receivers of a multicast group within a
subdomain.
This problem can be mitigated by encoding explicit multicast trees in
packet headers with bitstrings that have only node-local
significance. A drawback of this method is that any hop on the path
needs to be encoded so that long paths consume lots of header space.
This document presents the idea of Segment Routed Recursive Tree
Structures (RTS), a unifying approach in which a packet header
representing a multicast distribution tree is constructed from a tree
structure of vertices ("so called Recursive Units") that support
replication to their next-hop neighbors either via local bitstrings
or via sequence of next-hop neighbor identifiers called SIDs.
RTS, like RBS is intended to expand the applicability of deployment
for stateless multicast replication beyond what BIER and BIER-TE
support and expect: larger networks, less operational complexity, and
utilization of more modern forwarding planes as those expected to be
possible when BIER was designed (ca. 2010).
This document only specifies the forwarding plane but discusses
possible architectural options, which are primarily determined
through the future definition/mapping to encapsulation headers and
controller-plane functions.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
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 5 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. From BIER to RTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Example topology and tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. IP Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3. BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.4. BIER-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.5. RTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.6. Summary and Benefits of RTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. RTS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. RTS Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. RTS Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1. RU-Params . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
4.3.2. RU-Params Parsing and Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Creating and Receiving copies . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.4. Creating copies because of RTS Header d=1 . . . . . . 18
4.3.5. Creating copies because of RTS Header b=1 . . . . . . 18
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Encoding Efficiency vs. decoding challenges . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Encapsulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1. Comparison with BIER header and forwarding . . . . . 20
5.2.2. Comparison with IPv6 extension headers . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Encoding choices and complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3.1. SID vs bitstrings in recursive trees . . . . . . . . 21
5.3.2. Limited per-node functionality . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. Differences over prior Recursive BitString (RBS) encodings
proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.1. -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Evolution to RTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.1. Research work on BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.2. Initial RBS from CGM2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.3. RBS scalability compared to BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4. Discarding versus offset pointers . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.5. Encapsulations for IPv6-only networks . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.6. SEET and BEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
Please see {#version01} for a summary of changes over the prior
version of this document.
This draft expands on prior experimental work called "Recursive
BitString Structure" (RBS) for stateless multicast replication with
source routed data structures in the header of multicast data
packets. Its changes and enhancements over RBS are a result from
further scalability analysis and further matching against different
use cases. Its proposed design also includes Proof of Concept work
on high-speed, limited functionality programmable forwarding plane
engines in the P4 programming language.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
RTS, like RBS is intended to expand the applicability of deployment
for stateless multicast replication beyond what BIER and BIER-TE
support and expect: larger networks, less operational setup
complexity, and utilization of more flexible programmable forwarding
planes as those expected to be possible when BIER was designed (ca.
2010).
Unlike RBS, RTS does not limit itself to a design that is only based
on the use of local bitstrings but instead offers both bitstring and
SID based addressing inside the recursive tree structure to support
to allow more scalability for a wider range of use cases.
2. Overview
2.1. From BIER to RTS
2.1.1. Example topology and tree
Src Src
| ||
R1 R1
/ \ // \\
R2 R3 R2 R3
/ \ / \ // \ / \\
R5 R6 R7 R5 R6 R7
/ \ | \ / \ // \\ | \ // \\
R8 R9 R10 R11 R8 R9 R10 R11
| | | | || || || ||
Rcv1 Rcv2 Rcv3 Rcv4 Rcv1 Rcv2 Rcv3 Rcv4
Example Network Example BIER-TE / RTS Tree,
Topology // and || indicate tree segments
Figure 1: Example topology and tree
The following explanations use above example topology in Figure 1 on
the left, and example tree on the right.
2.1.2. IP Multicast
Assume a multicast packet is originated by Src and needs to be
replicated and forwarded to be received by Rcv1...Rcv4. In IP
Multicast with PIM multicast routing, router R1...R11 will have so-
called PIM multicast tree state, especially the intermediate routers
R2...R7. Whenever an IP Multicast router has multiple upstream
routers to choose from, then the path election is based on routing
RPF, so the routing protocol on R9 would need to route Src via R5,
and R10 would need to route Src via R7 to arrive at the tree shown in
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
the example.
2.1.3. BIER
In stateless multicast forwarding with Bit Index Explicit Replication
(BIER), [RFC8279], a packet has a header with a bitstring, and each
bit in the bitstring indicates one receiver side BIER router (BFER).
[R8:5 R9:9 R10:11 R11:17] =
00001000001000001000000000000000000000000
Figure 2: Example BIER bitstring
In Figure 2, the term [Ri:bi...] (i=5,9,10,11; bi=5,9,11,17)
indicates the routers "Ri" that have their associated bit in the
bitstring number "bi" set. In this example, the bitstring is assumed
to be 42 bit long. The actual length of bitstring supported depends
on the header, such as [RFC8296] and implementation. The assignment
of routers to bits in this example is random.
With BIER, there is no tree state in R2...R7, but the packet is
forwarded from R2 across these routers based on those "destination"
bits bi and information of the hop-by-hop IP routing protocol, e.g.:
IS-IS or OSPF. The intervening routers traversed therefore also
solely depend on that routing protocols routing table, and as in IP
multicast, there is no guarantee that the shown intermediate hops in
the example picture are chosen if, as shown there are multiple equal
cost paths (e.g.: src via R10->R6->R3 and R10->R7->R3).
The header and hence bitstring size is a limiting factor for BIER and
any source-routing. When the network becomes larger, not all
receiver side routers or all links in the topology can be expressed
by this number of bits. A network with 10,000 receivers for example
would require at least 40 different bitstrings of 256 bits to
represent all receiver routers with separate bits. In addition, the
packet header needs to indicate which of those 40 bitstrings is
contained in the packet header.
When then receiver routers in close proximity in the topology are
assigned to different bitstrings, then the path to these receivers
will need to carry multiple copies of the same packet payload,
because each copy is required to carry a different bitstring. In the
worst case, even as few as 40 receivers may require still 40 separate
copies, as if unicast was used - because each of the 40 bits is
represented in a different bitstring.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
2.1.4. BIER-TE
In BIER with Tree Engineering (BIER-TE), [RFC9262], the bits in the
bitstring do not only indicate the receiver side routers, but also
the intermediate links in the topology, hence allowing to explicitly
"engineer" the tree, for purposes such as load-splitting or bandwidth
guarantees on the tree.
[R1R2:4 R2R5:10 R5R8:15 R5R9:16 R1R3:25 R3R7:32 R7R10:39 R7R11:42]
000100000100001100000000100000010000001001
Figure 3: Example BIER-TE bitstring
In Figure 3, the list of [RxRy:bi...] indicates the set of bits
needed to describe the tree in Figure 1, using the same notation as
in Figure 2.
Each RxRy indicates one bit in the bitstring for the link Rx->Ry.
The need to express every link in a topology as a separate bit makes
scaling even more challenging and requiring more bitstrings to
represent a network than BIER does, but in result of this
representation, BIER-TE allows to explicitly steer copies along the
engineered path, something required for services that provide traffic
engineering, or when non-equal-cost load splitting is required
(without strict guarantees).
2.1.5. RTS
With Recursive Tree Structure (RTS) encoding, the concept of steered
forwarding from BIER-TE is modified to actually encode the tree
structure in the header as opposed to just one single "flat"
bitstring out of a large number of such bitstrings (in a large
network). For the same tree as above, the structure in the header
will logically look as follows.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
Syntax:
RU = SID { :[ NHi+ ] }
NHi = SID
SID = Ri
Example tree with SID list on R1:
R1 :[ R2 :[ R5 :[ R8 ,R9 ]], R3 :[R7 :[R10, R11]]]
Semantic:
R1 replicates to neighbors R2, R3.
R2 replicates to R5
R3 replicates to R7
...
Encoding structure:
1 byte SID always followed by
1 byte length of recursive structure length (":[" in example)
If no recursive structure follows, length is 0.
Example SID list serialization (decimal):
R1 :[ R2 :[ R5 :[ R8 ,R9 ]], R3 :[ R7 :[R10, R11 ]]]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
..........SIDs according to above example..........
| | | | | | | | |
01 16 02 06 05 04 08 00 09 00 03 06 07 04 10 00 11 00
| | | | | | | | |
......................Length fields................
Tree with SID list on R2:
R2 :[ R5 :[ R8 ,R9 ]]
Figure 4: Example RTS structure with SIDs
In the example the simplified RTS tree representation in Figure 4,
Rx:[NH1,... NHn] indicates that Rx needs to replicate the packet to
NH1, NH2 up to NHn. This [NH1,... NHn] list is called the SID-list.
Each NH can again be a "recursive" structure Rx:[NH1',...NHn'], such
as R5, or a leaf, such as R8, R9, Ro10, R11.
A simplified RTS serialization of this structure for the packet
header is also shown: Each router Ri is represented by am 8-bit SID
i. The length of the following SID list, :[NHi,...NHn], is also
encoded in one byte. If no SID list follows, it is 00.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
When a packet copy is made for a next-hop, only the relevant part of
the structure is kept in the header as shown for R2.
Example tree with bitstrings on R1:
BS1 :[ BS2 :[ BS5 :[ BS8, BS9 ]], BS3 :[BS7 :[BS10, BS11]]]
Example bitstring serialization (decimal):
....List of next-hops indicated by the BitStrings.........
| | | | | | | | |
R2,R3 R5 R8,R9 Rcv Rcv R7 R10,R11 Rcv Rcv
| | | | | | | | |
06 16 02 06 05 04 01 00 01 00 02 06 06 04 01 00 11 00
| | | | | | | | |
......................Length fields.......................
Example tree with bitstrings on R2:
BS2 :[ BS5 :[ BS8, BS9 ]]
Figure 5: Example RTS structure with bitstrings
Instead of enumerating for each router the list of next-hop neighbors
by their number (SID), RTS can also use a bitstring on each router,
resulting in a potentially more compact encoding. Scalability
comparison of the two encoding options is discussed later in the
document. Unlike BIER/BIER-TE bitstrings, each of these bitstring
will be small, as it only needs to indicate the direct neighbors of
the router for which the bitstring is intended.
In Figure 5, the example tree is shown with this bitstring encoding,
also simplified over the actual RTS encoding. BSi indicates the
bitstring for Ri as an 8-bit bitstring. On R8, R9, R10, R11 this
bitstring has bit 1 set, which is indicating that these routers
should receive ("Rcv") and decapsulate the packet.
2.1.6. Summary and Benefits of RTS
In BIER for large networks, even small number of receivers may not
fit into a single packet header, such as aforementioned when having
10,000 receiver routers with a bitstring size of 256. BIER always
requires to process the whole bitstring, bit-by-bit, so longer
bitstrings may cause issues in the ability of routers to process
them, even if the actual length of the bitstring would fit into
processable packet header memory in the router.
In BIER-TE, these problems are even more pronounced because the
bitstrings now need to also carry bits for the intermediate node
hops, which are necessary whenever the path for a packet need to be
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
explicitly predetermined such as in traffic engineering and global
network capacity optimization through non-equal cost load-balancing,
which in unicast is also a prime reason for deployment of Segment
Routing.
These scalability problems in BIER and BIER-TE can be reduced by
intelligent allocation of bits to bitstrings, but this requires
global coordination, and for best results good predictions of the
most important required future multicast trees.
In RTS, no such network wide intelligent assignment of addresses is
required, and any combination of receiver routers can be put into a
single packet header as long as the maximum size of the header is not
exceeded (including of course the intermediate nodes along the path).
Unlike Bier/BIER-TE, the RTS header can likely on many platforms be
larger than a BIER/BIER-TE bitstring, because the router never needs
to examine every bit in the header, but only the (local) bitstring or
list of SIDs for this router itself and then for each copy to a
neighbor, it only needs to copy the recursive structure for that
neighbor. The only significant limit for RTS in processing is hence
the maximum amount of bytes in a header that can be addressed.
3. Architecture
This version of the document does not specify an architecture for
RTS.
The forwarding described in this document can allow different
architectures, also depending on the encapsulation chosen. The
following high-level architectural considerations and possible goals/
benefits apply:
(A) If embedding RTS in an IP or IPv6 source-routing extension
header, RTS can provide source-routing to eliminate stateful (IP)
Multicast hop-by-hop tree building protocols such as PIM. This can
be specifically attractive in use cases that previously used end-to-
end IP Multicast without a more complex P/PE architecture, such as
enterprises, industrial and other non-SP networks.
(B) The encoding of the RTS multicast tree in the packet header makes
it natural to think about RTS providing a multicast "Segment Routing"
architecture style service with stateless replication segments: Each
recursive structure is an RTS segment.
This too can be a very attractive type of architecture to support,
especially for networks that already use MPLS or IPv6 Segment Routing
for unicast. Nevertheless, RTS can also be beneficial in SP networks
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
not using unicast Segment Routing, and there are no dependencies for
networks running RTS to also support unicast SR, other than sharing
architecture concepts.
(C) RTS naturally aligns with many goals and benefits of BIER and
even more so BIER-TE, which it could most easily supersede for better
scalability and ease of operations.
In one possible option, the RTS header specified in this document
could even replace the bitstring of the BIER [RFC8296] header,
keeping all other aspects of BIER/BIER-TE reusable. In such an
option, the architectural aspects of RTS would be derived and
simplified from [RFC9262], similar to details described in
[I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01].
4. Specification
4.1. RTS Encapsulation
+----------+--------+------------+
| Encap | RTS | Next Proto |
| Header(s)| Header | Payload |
+----------+--------+------------+
Figure 6: RTS encapsulation
This document specifies the formatting and functionality of the
"Recursive Tree Structure" (RTS) Header, which is assumed to be
located in a packet between some Encap Header and some Next Proto /
Payload.
The RTS header contains only elements to support replication to next-
hops, not any element for forwarding to next-hop. This is left as a
task for the Encap Header so that RTS can most easily be combined
with potentially multiple alternative Encapsulation Header(s) for
different type of network protocols or deployment use cases. Common
Encap Headers will also require an Encap Header specific description
of the total length of the RTS Header.
In a minimum (theoretical) example, RTS could be used on top of
Ethernet with an ethertype of RTS+Payload, which indicates not only
that an RTS Header follows, but also the type of the Next Proto
Payload.
See the encap discussions in Section 5.2 for considerations regarding
BIER or IPv6 extension headers as Encap Headers.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
4.2. RTS Addressing
Addresses of next-hops to which RTS can replicate are called RTS
Segment IDentifiers (SIDs). This is re-using the terminology
established by [RFC8402] to be agnostic of the addressing of the
routing underlay used for forwarding to next-hops and obtaining
routing information for those routing underlay addresses. Specifying
an encapsulation for RTS requires specifying how to map RTS SIDs to
addresses of the addresses used by that (unicast) forwarding
mechanism.
RTS SIDs are more accurately called RTS replication SIDs. They are
assigned to RTS nodes. When a packet is directed to a particular RTS
SID of an RTS node it means that that node needs then to process the
RTS Header and perform replication according to it.
Using the SR terminology does not mean that RTS is constrained to be
used with forwarding planes for which (unicast) SR mappings exist:
IPv6 and MPLS, but it means that for other forwarding planes,
mappings need to be defined. For example, when using RTS with
[RFC8296] encapsulation, and hence BIER addressing, which is relying
on 16-bit BFR-id addressing (especially the BFIR-id in the [RFC8296]
header), then RTS SIDs need to map to these BFR-ids.
If instead RTS is to be deployed with (only) an IPv6 extension header
as the Encap Header, then RTS SIDs need to be mapped to IPv6 SIDs.
This document uses three types of RTS SIDs to support three type of
encoding of next-hops in an RTS Header: Global, Local and Local
bitstring RTS SIDs.
All SIDs map to a unicast address or unicast SID of the node which
the RTS SID addresses. This unicast address or SID is used in an
Encap Header when sending an RTS packet to that node.
SIDs can be local or global in scope. All nodes only have one RTS
SID table, and it is purely a matter or the semantic assigned to a
SID whether it is local or global (as it is in SR).
There are two encoding lengths for SIDs, 10 and 18 bit. It may hence
be beneficial to fit all local SID into the lower 10 bit of the SID
address table so they can use the so-called short SID encoding (10
bit).
The network is expected to make SID information available to the
creators of RTS headers so they can create one or more RTS headers to
achieve the desired replication tree(s) for a payload. This
includes:
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
* global SIDs and the nodes they map to.
* Semantic of local SIDs on each node to optimize RTS headers by use
of local SIDs
* Capabilities of each node to understand which subset of the RTS
syntax can be encoded in the so-called "Recursive Unit" for this
node.
* For each node its "all-leaf-neighbors" list of global SIDs (see
{#all-leaf-neighbors})
4.3. RTS Header
+--------------------------------------------+
| RU0 |
|+---------++--------++-------+ +-------+|
||RU-Params|| RU-NH1 ||RU-NH2 | ....|RU-NHn ||
|+---------++--------++-------+ +-------+|
| |<------- RU-list (optional) -->||
+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: RTS Header
The RTS Header consists of a recursive structure of "Recursive Units"
abbreviated "RU"s. The whole header itself is called RU0. Every RU
is composed of RU-Params and an optional list of RU for next-hops
called the RU-list.
4.3.1. RU-Params
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BSL * 8 rle(RULL)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ............ +- ........... -+- ........... -+- ....... -+- ...
|b|d|S|L|B|R| SID (3/10/18) | RULL (0/8) | BSL | SD | BitString | RU-List
+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ............ +- ........... -+- ........... -+- ....... -+- ...
|<-Flags ->|
Figure 8: RU-Format
Flags:
b)roadcast: The node should broadcast copies of this packet to all
direct leaf neighbors if set to 1, else not
d)eliver: The node should receive a copy of the packet itself if set
to 1, else not.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
S)ID: A SID is present if set to 1, else not. If no SID is present,
the flags are followed by pad bits so that the following field will
start at a byte boundary.
L)ength: The SID is "Long" (18 bit), else short (10 bit).
B)itString: If set to 1, a BitString is present as well as the BLE/SD
fields, else all three fields are not present.
R)U-List: An RU-List and its length field, the RULL are present. If
0, both are not present.
SIDs:
As described by the S)ID and L)ength flags, when present, the SID can
be 10 or 18 bit long. These are called "short" and "long" SIDs.
They both address the same single SID table in the node. Short SIDs
are just an encoding optimization. Any SID may be "local" or
"global". A SID is "global" when it points to the same node
consistently. It is "local" when each node has it's own, potentially
different meaning for it. Typically, SIDs fitting into a short SID
will preferably be local SIDs such as those pointing to direct
(subnet) neighbors.
BitString / BSL / SD:
The BitString Length field (BSL) indicates the length of the
BitString field in bytes. It permits length of 0-32 bytes. SD is a
SubDomain, and allows up to 8 different BitStrings for each length.
RU-List / RULL:
RU-List Length (RULL) is the length of the RU-List field. To allow
RU-Lists longer than 256 bytes, the encoding of RULL uses a simple
encoding: RULL values <= 127 indicate the length of RU-List in bytes,
values >= 128 indicate a length of (127 + (RULL - 127) * 4). This
allows RU-List length of up to 640 bytes at the expense of up to 3
padding bytes at the end of an RU-List required when encoding RU-
Lists with length > 127 bytes.
Note: RULL is placed before BSL/SD and BitString so that the offset
of RULL inside of RU is fixed and does not depend on the length of
BitString (if present). This is beneficial because both SID and RULL
need to be parsed by prior-hop nodes when this RU is in an RU-list.
See the following explanations for more details.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
4.3.2. RU-Params Parsing and Semantics
An RU representing some specific nodeRU is parsed up to two times.
The first time, the RU may be present in the RU-List of the prior-hop
node to nodeRU, and the second time it is parsed by nodeRU itself.
4.3.2.1. Bitstring replication to leaf nodes
Figure 9 shows the most simple example with bitstrings, the RU for a
node that should use a local BitString to replicate to only lead
nodes
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 BSL * 8
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ....... -+
|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0| BSL | SD | BitString |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- ....... -+
b d S L B R p p
|<-Flags ->|
Figure 9: BitString replication to leaf nodes
We assume the node is just transit node, so the packet is neither to
be broadcast to all leaf neighbors nor received, hence b=0, d=0.
The RU has no SID, so S=0, L=0, and hence the flags are followed by
padding bits set to 0.
B=1 indicates a bitstring follows and R=0 indicates that the RU has
no RU-list, and hence no RULL. If the node's packet parser requires
any non-required field to be present, then those would have to be
included and set to 0.
Note that this RU can only be used if this is the the root of the
tree or the prior hop node was also replicating to this node via a
BitString. If the prior hop node was replicating via a SID-List,
then this RU would include a SID, but that SID would be ignored,
because it was only included for the benefit of the prior hop node.
BSL and SD indicate the BitString and its length.
When the node replicates to the bits in the BitString, it operates
pretty much like BIER-TE, aka: each bit indicates an adjacency, most
likely direct, subnet-local neighbors. For every bit, a copy is
being made.
For the copy to a leaf neighbor, the RTS packet is rewritten to a
simple form shown in Figure 10.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|b|d|0|0|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
b d S L B R p p
|<-Flags ->|
Figure 10: RU for leaf
The whole RTS header consists of a single by RU indicating simply
whether the receiving node should b)roadcast and/or d)eliver the
packet. Both bits are derived from the BIFT (Bit Index Forwarding
Table) of the replicating node.
4.3.2.2. SID-list replication to leaf nodes
Replication to a list of SID on a node requires an RU on the node as
shown in Figure 11.
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...........
|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0| RULL (8) | RU-List
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...........
b d S L B R p p
|<-Flags ->|
Figure 11: RU-List replication to leaf nodes
The SIDs of nodes to replicate to are always inside the neighbors RU,
hence SID-list replication means replication with an RU-List and
hence also an RULL field.
The b and d field for the replicating nodes RU itself determine only
whether it should also broadcast and/or receive the packet, so their
setting is irrelevant to the RU-List operation, so we assume in this
example both are 0.
If the prior hop node was also replicating via an RU-List, this RU
would also require a SID, but if this node is the root of the tree or
the prior hop was replicating via a BitString, it does not require a
SID. We show this simpler case. S=0, L=0 mean that instead of a
SID, there are just two padding bits p before RULL.
Assume all the neighbors to replicate to are direct neighbors, so we
encode local SIDs that fit into short, 10-bit long SIDs. In result,
the RU-list is a sequence of 16-bit long RUs, one each for each
neighbor to replicate to, as shown in Figure 12. And if the neighbor
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
was a couple of hops in the network topology away, one would use a
global SID, in which case it likely might require a long SID
encoding, and hence 24-bit for the RU.
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1|1|0|0|0| SID (10) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
b d S L B R
|<-Flags ->|
Figure 12: Leaf-node RU with SID
When the packet with the neighbors RU reaches that neighor, the RU is
RU0, aka: the complete RTS header.
In this encoding, unlike the encoding of the prior version of this
document, the SID itself carries no other semantic than the node it
is targeted for.
When RTS is used (like BIER) as a standalone L3 network layer, this
means that intermediate RTS capable, but not replicating nodes could
simply unicast forward the packet to the node indicated by the RU0,
similar to how loose hops operate in IPv6 with SRH. But that only
works when the SID of RU0 is a global SID. So the replicating node
may want to rewrite the SID in the RU to a global SID (including
adjusting the length) when such a mode of operation is desirable.
However, when operating RTS inside of IPv6, this loose-hop role would
be served by an outer IPv6 header, and the RTS header would become
another routing header. And the SID serves no value anymore, but can
be replaced by a special value such as 0, or the RU be rewritten to
not include a SID but just 2 bits of padding.
Likewise, if the SID used in the RU encoding is a local SID, then its
semantic will likely be different on the receiving node, so if its
needed for loose hop routing, it would need to be rewritten to a
global SID. If used inside IPv6 or another network layer, local SIDs
in RU0 should be removed or replaced by 0.
4.3.2.3. RU with SID-List and BitString
When would an RU require a SID and a BitString ? This is exactly the
case when the prior-hop node was replicating based on RU-List,
because this requires a SID in the next-hop RU, but that next-hop RU
itself should replicate with a BitString. In this case, the RU for
that node would include both a SID for the benefit of processing by
the prior-hop node, and a BitString (including BSL/SD) for its own
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
replication.
As mentioned before, the SID itself has no relevance anymore after
having been processed by the prior-hop replication engine, and might
be removed in the packet copy to the target node, but in the packet
header as encoded in the packet header for the root of the RTS tree,
both SID and BitString would need to be in the RU.
4.3.2.4. BitString replication to non-leaf neighbors
When replicating to non-leaf neighbors via BitString, an RU-List
parameter is necessary in the RU of the replicating node. Which
raises the question, how the replicating node can know whether to
replicate to a leaf or a non-leaf neighbor.
There are two options for this:
1. In the BIFT of the replicating node, each bit has a flag
indicating whether or not the node indicated by the bit is always
a leaf node or potentially also a non-leaf node. In this option,
there needs to be an RU-list in the RU with an entry for each bit
set in the BitString that indicates to not always be a lead node
in the BIFT. Each such RU-list entry can be a simple 8-bit RU
without SID or BitString when that neighbor is addressed without
the need for a larger RU.
2. There is no such bit in the BIFT, then all neighbors always
require an RU, which equally can be as short as 8-bit.
4.3.2.5. Functional subsets on individual nodes
Less capable forwarding engines may support only a subset of the
encoding and then need to be able to discover from the flag-bits
whether the RU destined for it contains an unsupported option and
then stop processing the packet and raise an error, e.g.: ICMP.
One set of limitations that seems to be necessary to fit functionally
limited forwarding engines could include all or a subset of the
following:
o Only one size of SID can be supported. In this case, the long SID
format should be supported, unless the type of device is known to
always be leaf nodes in topologies, in which case only short SIDs may
be supported.
o The variability of including an RU-list can not well be supported.
In this case, the RU for such a node may need to always include a
RUST field with a value of 0.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
o The node can not support BitString replication for non-leaf
neighbors. In this case, the RU with a BitString may not have the
R-bit set and no RU-List. For common cases where this would be an
issue, workarounds may be devised, for example, the node may have a
local SID pointing back to it, so that the node needs to be encoded
as 2 RU: The first RU uses RU-List replication, and one of the RU is
for the local SID of the node itself, causing the packet to
recirculate, and that RU would then use a BitString (without RU-
List).
Because there are no "global" aspects to the parsing of RUs, it
limitations on one type of node only have limited impact on the
network-wide ability to construct tree.
4.3.3. Creating and Receiving copies
RTS relies on unicast forwarding procedures using the Encap Header(s)
to receive packets and send copies of packets. Every copy of a
packet created, except for those that are for local reception by a
node, is sent towards a unicast address/SID according to the RTS SID
it addresses.
The RU0 Flags are responsible for distinguishing the encoding of the
following RU parameters but also provides the bits used for
processing by so-called "leaves" of an RTS tree, where packets need
to be delivered and/or broadcast to all "leaf" neighbors (where they
are then delivered).
4.3.4. Creating copies because of RTS Header d=1
When d=1 is encountered in RU0, an (internal) copy of the packet is
created in which the headers up to the RTS Header are disposed of
according to the procedures specified for Encap Header(s) so that the
Next Proto Payload after the RTS Header is processed.
4.3.5. Creating copies because of RTS Header b=1
When b=1 is set in RU0 flags, a list of unicast addresses/SIDs called
the "all leaf neighbors" is used to create a separate copy of the
packet for each element in that list. Each RTS node MAY have such a
list.
For each packet copy made because of b=1, the RU0 for that neighbor
is set with all Flags to 0 except for d=0. The RU0 for each such
neighbor is thus 8 bit long. Typically, the "all-leaf-neighbors"
list is (auto-)configured with the list of RTS L2 neighbors that are
known to be leaves of the RTS domain.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
5. Discussion
5.1. Encoding Efficiency vs. decoding challenges
One core challenge for RTS is encoding efficiency, aka: the size of
the header required to address a particular number of leaves. Or
with a defined maximum header size the maximum number of leaves that
can be addressed.
One core encoding trick to increase encoding efficiency is to not
indicate the semantic of variable fields but derive encoding from
prior field or state knowledge.
One example for this is not to encode the length of a local bitstring
but assume that this bitstring length is consistently known between
the processing node and the node encoding the bitstring, such as
ingress-PE, controller or sender application.
Consistent understanding of such control plane information to
correctly encode packet headers already exists as a requirement in
other headers, specifically MPLS and SR-MPLS and SRv6/SRH. The
semantic of labels/SID is not necessarily global and static in nature
but often also local and learned through control plane. If that
control plane information is inconsistent, then encoding nodes may
create incorrect headers that will be incorrectly processed.
For RTS, one additional challenge is when such consistent control
plane information implies the length of fields, such as in the
bitstring example. To reduce the problem space to what has been
accepted in unicast solutions such as MPLS/SR, it may hence be
necessary to explicitly include lengths for all variable lengths
fields. But this is in the opinion of the authors an open issue to
investigate further.
It may be possible and beneficial to instead of expanding the size of
headers because of this issue, to look into control plane solutions
to avoid this requirement. This could be based on the following
mechanisms:
o Packets are forwarded only as L2 unicast with explicit addressing
of destinations to prohibit hop-by-hop mis-delivery. Such as using
L2 ethernet with globally unique L2 ethernet MAC destination
addresses. This is what the solution currently assumes.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
o Mechanisms to the control plane distributing the relevant
information (such as lengths of bitstrings, semantics of SIDs) not
only in an "eventual consistency" way, but in a "strict consistency"
way. Aka: all nodes in the domain that can be addressed by RTS trees
are known to have consistent control plane information relevant to
the consistent encoding/decoding.
o Mapping this "strict consistency" encoding to a numeric "control
plane version" value that can be carried as a new field in headers.
Such an approach may not be sufficient to answer all questions, such
as how to change control plane information upon planned topology
changes, but it should suffice to ensure that whoever encodes a
packet can add the "control plane version" field to the header, and
any node potentially parsing this header will have either consistent
information or not accept the indicated "control plane version".
Short of deriving on such a solution, the encoding will become longer
due to the need of explicitly including fields for the semantic of
following fields. The encoding described has a range of cases where
this option is already defined as an alternative.
Because of these additional, not currently standard control plane
requirements, this version of the document includes now all variable
aspects explicitly in the encoding.
5.2. Encapsulation considerations
5.2.1. Comparison with BIER header and forwarding
The RTS header is equivalent to the elements of a BIER/BIER-TE header
required for BIER and BIER-TE replication.
(SI, SD, BSL, Entropy, Bitstring)
RTS currently does not specify an ECMP procedure to next-hop SIDs
because it is part of the (unicast) forwarding to next-hops, but not
to RTS replication.
Note that this is not the same set of header fields as [RFC8296],
because that header contains more and different fields for additional
functionality, which RTS would require to be in an Encap Header.
For the same reason, the RTS Header does also not include the
[RFC8296] fields TC/DSCP for QoS, OAM, Proto (for next proto
identification) and BFIR-id. Note that BFIR-id is not used by BIER
forwarding either, but by BIER overlay-flow forwarding on BFIR and
BFER.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
Constraining the RTS header to only the necessary fields was chosen
to make it most easy to combine it with any desirable encapsulation
header.
RTS could use [RFC8296] as an Encap Header and BIER/[RFC8296]
forwarding procedures, replacing only BIER bitstring replication to
next-hop functionality with RTS replication.
In this case, the RTS Header could take the place of the bitstring
field in the [RFC8296] header, using the next largest size allowed by
BIER to fit the RTS header. SI would be unused, and SD could be used
to run RTS, BIER and even BIER-TE in parallel through different
values of SD, and all BIER forwarding procedures including ECMP to
next-hop SIDs could be used in conjunction with RTS replication.
5.2.2. Comparison with IPv6 extension headers
The RTS header could be used as a payload of an an IPv6 extension
header as similarly proposed for RBS in [I-D.eckert-msr6-rbs]. Note
that the RTS header itself does not contain a simple length field
that allows to completely skip across it. This is done because such
functionality may not be required by all encapsulation headers /
forwarding planes, or the format in which such a length is expected
(unit) may be different for different forwarding planes. If
required, such as when using the RTS header in an IPv6 extension
header, then such a total-length field would have to be added to the
Encap Header.
5.3. Encoding choices and complexity
5.3.1. SID vs bitstrings in recursive trees
The use of SID-lists in the encoding is a natural fit when the target
tree is one that does not require replication on many of the hops
through which it passes, such as when doing non-equal-cost load-
splitting, such as in capacity optimization in service provider
networks. In [RFC9262], Figure 2, such an example is called an
"Overlay" (tree). In the SID list, each of the SID can easily be
global, making it possible for a next-hop to be anywhere in the
network. While it is possible to also use global SIDs in a
bitstring, the decision to include any global (remote) SID as a bit
in a bitstring introduces additional encoding size cost for every
tree, and not only the ones that would need this bit. This is also
the main issue of using such global SIDs in BIER-TE (where they are
represented as forward_routed()) adjacencies.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
When replicating to direct neighbors, SID lists may be efficient for
sparse trees. In the RTS encoding, up to 127 direct neighbors could
be encoded in 8 bit for each SID, so it is easy to compare the
encoding efficiency to that of a bitstring. A router with 32
neighbors (assume leaf neighbors for simplicity) requires 32 bits to
represent all possible neighbors, if 4 or fewer neighbors need to
receive a copy, a SID-list encoding requires equal or fewer bytes to
encode.
Use of the broadcast option is equally possible with SID-list or
bitstrings. An initial scalability test with such an option was
shown in slide 6 of [RBSatIETF115], but not included in any prior
proposed encoding option; a better analysis of this option is subject
to future work.
The ability of the RTS encoding to mix for the initial part(s) of a
tree SID lists and then for leaves or tail parts of the tree
bitstrings specifically addresses the common understanding that
multicast trees typically are sparse at the root and may also be more
"overlay" type, but then tend to become denser towards the leaves.
Even if there is the opportunity to create more replications within
the first hops of a tree, that approach may often not result in the
most costs-effective ("steiner") trees.
5.3.2. Limited per-node functionality
The encoding proposed in this (version of the) draft is based on P4
development of a reference proof of concept called SEET+. It does not
exactly follow the encoding, but attempts to generalize it to support
both more flexible and more constrained forwarding platforms.
Because in a recursive tree an individual node only needs to parse
one part of the tree that is designated for it, this type of encoding
allows it to support different flexible forwarding engines in the
same network: The recursive units that are to be parsed by a less
flexible nodes forwarding engine simply can not use all the possible
options, but only those options possible on that forwarding engine.
To then support such a mix of forwarding engines, the following
architectural elements are necessary:
1. The control plane of every node needs to signal the subset of
functionality so that the place where the control plane
constructs an RTS will know what limitations it has.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
2. The forwarding plane of nodes not supporting full functionality
needs to be able to reliably recognize when the encoding utilizes
a feature not supported, stop parsing/replicating the packet and
raise an error (ICMP or similar) as necessary.
For example, some type of forwarding engines could have the following
set of limitations.
The forwarding engine might not be possible to process the recursive
bitstring structure because there could be insufficient code space
for both recursive SID and recursive bitstring option. In this case
the limitation would be that a bitstring type RU to be processed by
this node does have to be a leaf which is not followed by a set of RU
for downstream neighbors.
Consider such a node is located in a distribution ring serving as an
aggregation node to a large number of lead neighbors. In this
topological case, a local bitstring would be ideal to indicate which
of the leaf neighbors the packet has to be replicated. However, the
packet would equally need to be forwarded to the next ring neighbor,
and that ring neighbor would need its own RU. Which would not be
directly supportable on this type of node.
To handle this situation, such a limited functionality node would
assign a local SID to itself and trees that pass through this node
would need to encode first a SID type RU indicating the ring neighbor
as well as the node itself. The RU for this nodes SID itself would
then be a local bitstring RU. Likely the node would then also
process the packet twice through so-called recirculation. In
addition, this approach increases the side of the RTS encoding.
5.4. Differences over prior Recursive BitString (RBS) encodings
proposal
The encoding for bitstrings proposed in this draft relies again on
discarding of unnecessary RU instead of using offset pointers in the
header to allow parsing only the relevant RU.
Discarding unnecessary RU has the benefit, that the total size of the
header can be larger than if offset pointers where used. Forwarding
engines have a maximum amount of header that they can inspect. With
offset pointers, the furthest a node has to look into the RTS header
is the actual size of the RTS header. With discarding of unnecessary
RU, this maximum size for inspection can be significantly less than
the maximum RTS header size. Consider the root of tree has two
neighbors to copy to and both have equal size RU, then this root of
the tree only needs to inspect up to the beginning of the second RU
(the SID or bitstring in it).
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
6. Security considerations
TBD
7. Acknowledgments
The local bitstrings part of this work is based on the design
published by Sheng Jiang, Xu Bing, Yan Shen, Meng Rui, Wan Junjie and
Wang Chuang {jiangsheng|bing.xu|yanshen|mengrui|wanjunjie2|wangchuang
}@huawei.com, see [CGM2Design]. Many thanks for Bing Xu
(bing.xu@huawei.com) for editorial work on the prior variation of
that work [I-D.xu-msr6-rbs].
8. Changelog
8.1. -00
This version was derived from merging the [SEET] and RBS proposals
(called BEET in the [SEET] presentation) into a single encoding
mechanism. SEET is a proposal for per-tree-hop replication with SID-
Lists, RBS is a proposal for replication with per-hop local
BitStrings. Both embody the same idea of Recursive Units to
represent each hop in the tree, but the content of these recursive
Units is different whether SID-Lists or BitStrings are used.
Because the processing of recursive structures are directly impacted
and limited by the capabilities of forwarding planes, and because by
the time of writing this -00 draft, only separate SEET and separate
RBS reference Proof Of Concept implementations existed, this version
does propose to support only separate trees: A tree only constructed
from SID-Lists, or a Tree only supported from local BitStrings. Each
packet needs to choose which format to use.
8.2. -01
After -00 version, reference Proof Of Concept work was done to
investigate whether it was possible in a single forwarding plane to
support trees that can have both SID-lists and local BitStrings. The
main reason for this was that supporting both options as ships in the
night turned out to be costing too much code space on limited forward
plane engines.
In result, the reference limited forwarding plane engine could be
made to support trees with a limited mix of SID-list replication and
local BitStrings. Local BitStrings could only be used on hops prior
to leaves, e.g.: no further local BitString replication was possible
(single stage).
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
RTS -01 is now a proposal that generalizes on these PoC experiences
by proposing a format for recursive units that allows to implement
the limited functionality possible on limited capability forwarding
engines, but that also allow to implement arbitrary mixing of per-hop
use of SID-List and BitString replication on forwarding planes that
are more capable. The encoding is also chosen so that nodes can
easily recognize if the packet embodies an encoding option not
supported by it and reject the packet.
In addition, the -00 version of RTS did embody a range of
optimizations for shorter encoding length by avoiding packet header
fields that contain information such as parameter length that could
be assumed to be known by both the generator and consumer of the
header element (RU). This has been removed in this version of the
proposal and replaced by explicitly integrating all variable length
field information as well as other interpretation semantics
explicitly into the header encoding. This change is not necessarily
the final conclusion of thi issue, but the document lays out what
other control plane requirements would first have to be built to be
able to have more compact encodings - and those requirements are not
commonly support by the most widely used control planes.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC6554] Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6554, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6554>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8296>.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8754>.
[RFC9262] Eckert, T., Ed., Menth, M., and G. Cauchie, "Tree
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
RFC 9262, DOI 10.17487/RFC9262, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9262>.
9.2. Informative References
[CGM2Design]
Jiang, S., Xu, B. (Robin)., Shen, Y., Rui, M., Junjie, W.,
and W. Chuang, "Novel Multicast Protocol Proposal
Introduction", 10 October 2021,
<<https://github.com/BingXu1112/CGMM/blob/main/Novel%20Mul
ticast%20Protocol%20Proposal%20Introduction.pptx>>.
[CGM2report]
"Carrier Grade Minimalist Multicast CENI Networking Test
Report", 1 August 2022,
<<https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network2030/
publications/main/CENI_Carrier_Grade_Minimalist_Multicast_
Networking_Test_Report.pdf>>.
[I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs]
Eckert, T. T. and B. Xu, "Carrier Grade Minimalist
Multicast (CGM2) using Bit Index Explicit Replication
(BIER) with Recursive BitString Structure (RBS)
Addresses", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01, 9 February 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-bier-
cgm2-rbs-01>.
[I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-00]
Eckert, T. T., "Carrier Grade Minimalist Multicast (CGM2)
using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) with Recursive
BitString Structure (RBS) Addresses", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-00, 25 October
2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-
bier-cgm2-rbs-00>.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
[I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01]
Eckert, T. T. and B. Xu, "Carrier Grade Minimalist
Multicast (CGM2) using Bit Index Explicit Replication
(BIER) with Recursive BitString Structure (RBS)
Addresses", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01, 9 February 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-bier-
cgm2-rbs-01>.
[I-D.eckert-bier-rbs]
Eckert, T. T., Menth, M., Geng, X., Zheng, X., Meng, R.,
and F. Li, "Recursive BitString Structure (RBS) Addresses
for BIER and MSR6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-bier-
rbs-00>.
[I-D.eckert-msr6-rbs]
Eckert, T. T., Geng, X., Zheng, X., Meng, R., and F. Li,
"Recursive Bitstring Structure (RBS) for Multicast Source
Routing over IPv6 (MSR6)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-eckert-msr6-rbs-01, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-eckert-msr6-
rbs-01>.
[I-D.xu-msr6-rbs]
Xu, B., Geng, X., and T. T. Eckert, "RBS(Recursive
BitString Structure) for Multicast Source Routing over
IPv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xu-msr6-
rbs-01, 30 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xu-msr6-rbs-
01>.
[Menth20h] Merling, D., Lindner, S., and M. Menth, "P4-Based
Implementation of BIER and BIER-FRR for Scalable and
Resilient Multicast", IEEE in "Journal of Network and
Computer Applications" (JNCA), vol. 196, Nov. 2020,
preprint https://atlas.informatik.uni-
tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth20h.pdf,
DOI 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102764, n.d.,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102764>.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
[Menth21] Merling, D., Lindner, S., and M. Menth, "Hardware-based
Evaluation of Scalable and Resilient Multicast with BIER
in P4", IEEE in "IEEE Access",
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6287639>, vol. 9, p. 34500 -
34514, March 2021, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/
stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9361548>, n.d..
[Menth23] Merling, D., Stüber, T., and M. Menth, "Efficiency of BIER
Multicast in Large Networks", IEEE accepted for "IEEE
Transactions on Network and Service Managment", preprint
<https://atlas.cs.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth21-
Sub-5.pdf>, n.d.. preprint
[Menth23f] Lindner, S., Merling, D., and M. Menth, "Learning
Multicast Patterns for Efficient BIER Forwarding with P4",
IEEE in "IEEE Transactions on Network and Service
Managment", vol. 20, no. 2, June 2023, preprint
https://atlas.cs.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth22-
Sub-2.pdf, n.d..
[RBSatIETF115]
Eckert, T., Menth, M., Gend, X., Zhen, X., Meng, R., and
F. Li, "RBS (Recursive BitString Structure) to improve
scalability beyond BIER/BIER-TE, IETF115", November 2022,
<<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/
slides-115-bier-recursive-bitstring-structure-rbs-beyond-
bierbier-te-00>>.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791>.
[SEET] Lindner, S., Menth, M., and T. Eckert, "P4 Tofino
Implementation Experiences with Advanced Stateless
Multicast Source Routing", 1 November 2023,
<<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/
slides-118-bier-02-ietf118-bier-p4-02.pdf>>.
Appendix A. Evolution to RTS
The following history review of RBS explains key aspects of the road
towards RTS and how prior document work is included (or not) in this
RTS work.
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
A.1. Research work on BIER
Initial experience implementation with implementation of BIER in PE
was gained through "P4-Based Implementation of BIER and BIER-FRR for
Scalable and Resilient Multicast", [Menth20h], from which experience
was gained that processing of large BIER bitstring requires
significantly complex programming for efficient forwarding, as
described in "Learning Multicast Patterns for Efficient BIER
Forwarding ith P4", [Menth23f]. Further evaluations where researched
through "Hardware-based Evaluation of Scalable and Resilient
Multicast with BIER in P4", [Menth21] and "Efficiency of BIER
Multicast in Large Networks", [Menth23].
A.2. Initial RBS from CGM2
The initial, 2021 [I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-00] introduces the
concept of Recursive Bitstring Forwarding (RBS) in which a single
bitstring in a source routing header for stateless multicast
replication as introduced by BIER and re-used by BIER-TE is replaced
by a recursive structure representing each node of a multicast tree
and in each node the list of neighbors to which to replicate to is
represented by a bitstring.
Routers processing this recursive structure do not need to process
the whole structure, instead, they only need to examine their own
local bitstring, and replicate copies to each of the neighbors for
which a bit is set in the bitstring for this node. For each copy the
recursive structure is rewritten so that only the remaining subtree
behind the neighbor remains in the packet header. By only having to
examine a "local" (and hence short) bitstring, RBS processing can
arguably be simpler than that of BIER/BIER-TE. By discarding the
parts of the tree structure not needed anymore, there is also no need
to change bits in the bitstring as done in BIER/BIER-TE to avoid
loops.
This initial version of RBS encoding is based on a design originally
called "Carrier Grade Minimalist Multicast" (CGM2), and which started
as a research project whose design is summarized in [CGM2Design]. A
vendor high-speed router implementation proof-of-concept was done, as
well as a wide-area proof-of-concept research network deployment,
which was documented for the 2022 Nanjing "6th future Network
Development Conference". An english translation of the report can be
found at [CGM2report].
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
A.3. RBS scalability compared to BIER
The 2022 [I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs-01] version of the document adds
topology and testing information about a simulation comparing RBS
with BIER performance in a dense, high-speed network topology. It is
showing that the number of replications required to reach an
increasing number of receivers does grow slower with RBS than with
BIER, because in BIER, it is necessary to send another packet copy
from the source whenever receivers in a different Set Identifier
Bitstring (SI) are required, whereas RBS requires to only create
multiple copies of a packet at the source to reach more receivers
whenever the RBS packet header size for one packet is exhausted. The
results of this simulation are shown in slide 6 of [RBSatIETF115].
While RBS with its explicit description of the whole multicast tree
structure seems immediately like (only) a replacement for BIER-TE,
which does the same, but encodes it in a "flat"BIER bitstring (and
incurring more severe scalability limitations because of this), this
simulation shows that the RBS approach may also compete with BIER
itself, even though this may initially look counter-intuitive because
information not needed in the BIER encoding - intermediate hops - is
encoded in RBS.
The scalability analysis also assumes one novel encoding
optimization, indicating replication to all leaf neighbors on a node.
This allow to even further compact the RBS encoding for dense trees,
such as in applications like IPTV. Note that this optimization was
not included in any of the RBS proposal specifications, but it is
included in this RTS specification.This optimization leads to the
actual reduction in packet copies sent for denser trees in the
simulation results.
A.4. Discarding versus offset pointers
[I-D.eckert-bier-rbs] re-focusses the work of the prior
[I-D.eckert-bier-cgm2-rbs] to focus only on the forwarding plane
aspects, removing simulation results and architectural considerations
beyond the forwarding plane.
It also proposes one then considered to be interesting alternative to
the encoding. Instead of discarding unnecessary parts of the tree
structure for every copy of a packet made along the tree, its
forwarding machinery instead uses two offset pointers in the header
to point to the relevant sub-structure for the next-hop, so that only
a rewrite of these two pointers is needed. This replicates the
offset-rewrite used in unicast source-routing headers such as in IP,
[RFC791], or IPv6, [RFC6554] and [RFC8754].
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
Discussions about discarding vs. changing of offset since then seems
to indicate that changing offsets may be beneficial for forwarders
that can save memory bandwidth when not having to rewrite complete
packet headers, such as specifically systems with so-called scatter-
gather I/O, whereas discarding of data is more beneficial when
forwards do have an equivalent of scatter/gather I/O, something which
all modern high-speed routers seem to have, including the platform
used for validation of the approach described in this document.
A.5. Encapsulations for IPv6-only networks
Whereas all initial RBS proposal did either not propose specific
encapsulations for the RBS structure and/or discussed how to use RBS
with the existing BIER encapsulation [RFC8296], the 2022
[I-D.xu-msr6-rbs] describes the encapsulation of RBS into an IPv6
extension header, in support of a forwarding plane where all packets
on the wire are IPv6 packets, rewriting per-RBS-hop the destination
IPv6 address of the outer IPv6 header like pre-existing unicast IPv6
stateless source routing solutions too ([RFC6554], [RFC8754]).
This approach was based on the express preference desire of IPv6
operators to have a common encapsulation of all packets on the wire
for operation reasons ("IPv6 only network design") and to share a
common source-routing mechanism operating on the principle of per-
steering-hop IPv6 destination address rewrite.
[I-D.eckert-msr6-rbs] extends this approach by adding the offset-
pointer rewrite of [I-D.eckert-bier-rbs] to the extension header to
avoid any change in length of the extension header, but it also
includes another, RBS independent field, the IPv6 multicast
destination address to the extension header. Only this additional
would allow for RBS with a single extension header to be a complete
IPv6 multicast source-routing solution. BIER/BIER-TE or any
encapsulation variations of RBS without such a header field would
always require to carry a full IPv6 header as a payload to provide
end-to-end IPv6 multicast service to applications.
A.6. SEET and BEET
To validate concepts for recursive trees, high-speed reference
platform proof of concept validation was done for booth SID-list and
local-bitstring based recursive trees in 2023. This is called in the
research work SEET and BEET. See [SEET]. Paper to follow.
Contributors
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft pim-rts March 2024
Xuesong Geng
Huawei
China
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Xiuli Zheng
Huawei
China
Email: zhengxiuli@huawei.com
Rui Meng
Huawei
China
Email: mengrui@huawei.com
Fengkai Li
Huawei
China
Email: lifengkai@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Toerless Eckert (editor)
Futurewei Technologies USA
2220 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Germany
Email: menth@uni-tuebingen.de
Steffen Lindner
University of Tuebingen
Germany
Email: steffen.lindner@uni-tuebingen.de
Eckert, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 32]
