Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks O. Dornon
Internet-Draft J. Kotalwar
Intended status: Informational Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: April 25, 2015 V. Hemige
R. Qiu
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
October 22, 2014
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) over Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-07
Abstract
This document describes the procedures and recommendations for
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edges (PEs) to facilitate
replication of multicast traffic to only certain ports (behind which
there are interested Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) routers
and/or Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) hosts) via Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM) snooping and proxying.
With PIM snooping, PEs passively listen to certain PIM control
messages to build control and forwarding states while transparently
flooding those messages. With PIM proxying, Provider Edges (PEs) do
not flood PIM Join/Prune messages but only generate their own and
send out of certain ports, based on the control states built from
downstream Join/Prune messages. PIM proxying is required when PIM
Join suppression is enabled on the Customer Equipment (CE) devices
and useful to reduce PIM control traffic in a VPLS domain.
The document also describes PIM relay, which can be viewed as light-
weight proxying, where all downstream Join/Prune messages are simply
forwarded out of certain ports but not flooded to avoid triggering
PIM Join suppression on CE devices.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Multicast Snooping in VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. PIM Snooping for VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. PIM protocol background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. General Rules for PIM Snooping in VPLS . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Preserving Assert Trigger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Some Considerations for PIM Snooping . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3. PIM-SM (*,*,RP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. PIM Snooping vs PIM Proxying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Differences between PIM Snooping, Relay and Proxying 9
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
2.4.2. PIM Control Message Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.3. When to Snoop and When to Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Discovering PIM Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. PIM-SM and PIM-SSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1. Building PIM-SM Snooping States . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.2. Explanation for per (S,G,N) states . . . . . . . . . 16
2.6.3. Receiving (*,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages . . . . . 16
2.6.4. Receiving (S,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages . . . . . 18
2.6.5. Receiving (S,G,rpt) Join/Prune Messages . . . . . . . 20
2.6.6. Sending Join/Prune Messages Upstream . . . . . . . . 20
2.7. Bidirectional-PIM (BIDIR-PIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.8. Interaction with IGMP Snooping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9. PIM-DM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9.1. Building PIM-DM Snooping States . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.9.2. PIM-DM Downstream Per-Port PIM(S,G,N) State Machine . 23
2.9.3. Triggering ASSERT election in PIM-DM . . . . . . . . 23
2.10. PIM Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.10.1. Upstream PIM Proxy behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.11. Directly Connected Multicast Source . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.12. Data Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.12.1. PIM-SM Data Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.12.2. PIM-DM Data Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. BIDIR-PIM Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.1. BIDIR-PIM Data Forwarding Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Example Network Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.1. Pim Snooping Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.2. PIM Proxy Example with (S,G) / (*,G) interaction . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
In Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), the Provider Edge (PE) devices
provide a logical interconnect such that Customer Edge (CE) devices
belonging to a specific VPLS instance appear to be connected by a
single LAN. Forwarding Information Base for a VPLS instance is
populated dynamically by source MAC address learning. Once a unicast
MAC address is learned and associated with a particular Attachment
Circuit (AC) or PseudoWire (PW), a frame destined to that MAC address
only needs to be sent on that AC or PW.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
For a frame not addressed to a known unicast MAC address, flooding
has to be used. This happens with the following so called BUM
(Broadcast Unknown Multicast) traffic:
o B: The destination MAC address is a broadcast address,
o U: The destination MAC address is unknown (has not been learned),
o M: The destination MAC address is a multicast address.
Multicast frames are flooded because a PE cannot know where
corresponding multicast group members reside. VPLS solutions (i.e.,
[VPLS-LDP] and [VPLS-BGP]) perform replication for multicast traffic
at the ingress PE devices. As stated in the VPLS Multicast
Requirements draft [VPLS-MCAST-REQ], there are two issues with VPLS
multicast today:
o A. Multicast traffic is replicated to non-member sites.
o B. Replication on PWs on shared physical path.
Issue A can be solved by multicast snooping - PEs learn sites with
multicast group members by snooping multicast protocol control
messages on ACs and forward IP multicast traffic only to member
sites. This document describes the procedures to achieve this when
CE devices are PIM adjacencies of each other. Issue B is outside the
scope of this document and discussed in[VPLS-MCAST-TREES].
While this document is in the context of VPLS, the procedures apply
to regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical connections as
well, albeit this is outside of the scope of this document. In that
case, the PW related concept/procedures are not applicable and that's
all.
1.1. Multicast Snooping in VPLS
IGMP snooping procedures described in [IGMP-SNOOP] make sure that IP
multicast traffic is only sent on the following:
o Attachment Circuits (ACs) connecting to hosts that report related
group membership
o ACs connecting to routers that join related multicast groups
o PseudoWires (PWs) connecting to remote PEs that have the above
described ACs
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point
connections to routers ot that are attached to a LAN on which there
is a router, even those on which there are no snooped group
memberships, because IGMP snooping alone can not determine if there
are interested receivers beyond those routers. To further restrict
traffic sent to those routers, PIM snooping can be used. This
document describes the procedures for PIM snooping, including the
rules when both IGMP and PIM snooping are enabled in a VPLS instance,
which are elaborated in sections Section 2.8 and Section 2.11.
Note that for both IGMP and PIM, the term Snooping is used loosely,
referring to the fact that a layer-2 device peeks into layer-3
routing protocol messages to build relevant control and forwarding
states. Depending on how the control messages are handled
(transparently flooded, selectively forwarded, or consumed and then
regenerated), the procedure/process may be called Snooping or proxy
in different contexts.
Unless explicitly noted, the procedures in this document are used for
either PIM snooping or PIM proxying, and we will largely refer to PIM
snooping in this document. The PIM proxying specific procedures are
described in Section 2.6.6. Differences that need to be observed
while implementing one or the other and recommendations on which
method to employ in different scenarios are noted in section
Section 2.4.
This document also describes PIM relay, which can be viewed as light-
weight PIM proxying. Unless explicitly noted, in the rest of the
document proxying implicitly includes relay as well.
1.2. Assumptions
This document assumes that the reader has good understanding of the
PIM protocols. This document is written in the same style as the PIM
RFCs to help correlate the concepts and to make it easier to follow.
In order to avoid replicating text related to PIM protocol handling
from the PIM RFCs, this document cross references corresponding
definitions and procedures in these RFCs. Deviations in protocol
handling specific to PIM snooping are specified in this document.
1.3. Definitions
There are several definitions referenced in this document that are
well described in the PIM RFCs [PIM-SM], [BIDIR-PIM], [PIM-DM]. The
following definitions and abbreviations are used throughout this
document:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
o A port is defined as either an attachment circuit (AC) or a
pseudowire (PW).
o When we say a PIM message is received on a PE port, it means that
the PE is processing the message for snooping/proxying or
relaying.
Abbreviations used in the document:
o S: IP address of the multicast source.
o G: IP address of the multicast group.
o N: Upstream neighbor field in a Join/Prune/Graft message.
o Port(N): Port on which neighbor N is learnt.
o rpt : Rendezvous Point
o PIM-DM: Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode.
o PIM-SM: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode.
o PIM-SSM: Protocol Independent Multicast - Source Specific Mode.
Other definitions are explained in the sections where they are
introduced.
2. PIM Snooping for VPLS
2.1. PIM protocol background
PIM is a multicast routing protocol running between routers, which
are CE devices in a VPLS. PIM shares many of the common
characteristics of a routing protocol, such as discovery messages
(e.g., neighbor discovery using Hello messages), topology information
(e.g., multicast tree), and error detection and notification (e.g.,
dead timer and designated router election). PIM does not participate
in exchange of unicast routing databases, but it uses the unicast
routing table to provide reverse path information for building
multicast trees. There are a few variants of PIM. In [PIM-DM],
multicast datagrams are pushed towards downstream neighbors, similar
to a broadcast mechanism, but in areas of the network where there are
no group members, routers prune back branches of the multicast tree
towards the source. Unlike PIM-DM, other PIM flavors (PIM-SM
[PIM-SM], PIM-SSM [PIM-SSM], and BIDIR-PIM [BIDIR-PIM]) employ a pull
methodology via explicit joins instead of the push and prune
technique.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
PIM routers periodically exchange Hello messages to discover and
maintain stateful sessions with neighbors. After neighbors are
discovered, PIM routers can signal their intentions to join or prune
specific multicast groups. This is accomplished by having downstream
routers send an explicit Join/Prune message (for the sake of
generalization, consider Graft messages for PIM-DM as Join messages)
to the upstream routers. The Join/Prune message can be group
specific (*,G) or group and source specific (S,G).
2.2. General Rules for PIM Snooping in VPLS
The following rules for the correct operation of PIM snooping MUST be
followed.
o PIM snooping MUST NOT affect the operation of customer layer-2
protocols (e.g., BPDUs) or layer-3 protocols.
o PIM messages and multicast data traffic forwarded by PEs MUST
follow the split-horizon rule for mesh PWs.
o PIM snooping states in a PE MUST be per VPLS instance.
o PIM assert triggers MUST be preserved to the extent necessary to
avoid sending duplicate traffic to the same PE (see
Section 2.2.1).
2.2.1. Preserving Assert Trigger
In PIM-SM/DM, there are scenarios where multiple routers could be
forwarding the same multicast traffic on a LAN. When this happens,
using PIM Assert election process by sending PIM Assert messages,
routers ensure that only the Assert winner forwards traffic on the
LAN. The Assert election is a data driven event and happens only if
a router sees traffic on the interface to which it should be
forwarding the traffic. In the case of VPLS with PIM snooping, two
routers may forward the same multicast datagrams at the same time but
each copy may reach different set of PEs, and that is acceptable from
the point of view of avoiding duplicate traffic. If the two copies
may reach the same PE then the sending routers must be able to see
each other's traffic, in order to trigger Assert election and stop
duplicate traffic. To achieve that, PEs enabled with PIM-SSM/SM
snooping MUSTforward multicast traffic for an (S,G)/(*,G) not only on
the ports on which they snooped Joins(S,G)/Joins(*,G), but also
towards the upstream neighbor(s)). In other words, the ports on
which the upstream neighbors are learnt must be added to the outgoing
port list along with the ports on which Joins are snooped.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Similarly, PIM-DM snooping SHOULD make sure that asserts can be
triggered (Section 2.9.3).
The above logic needs to be facilitated without breaking VPLS split-
horizon forwarding rules. That is, traffic should not be forwarded
on the port on which it was received, and traffic arriving on a PW
MUST NOT be forwarded onto other PW(s).
2.3. Some Considerations for PIM Snooping
The PIM snooping solution described here requires a PE to examine and
operate on only PIM Hello and PIM Join/Prune packets. The PE does
not need to examine any other PIM packets.
Most of the PIM snooping procedures for handling Hello/Join/Prune
messages are very similar to those executed in a PIM router.
However, the PE does not need to have any routing tables like as
required in PIM multicast routing. It knows how to forward Join/
Prunes only by looking at the Upstream Neighbor field in the Join/
Prune packets.
The PE does not need to know about Rendezvous Points (RP) and does
not have to maintain any RP Set. All that is transparent to a PIM
snooping PE.
In the following sub-sections, we list some considerations and
observations for the implementation of PIM snooping in VPLS.
2.3.1. Scaling
PIM snooping needs to be employed on ACs at the downstream PEs (PEs
receiving multicast traffic across the VPLS core) to prevent traffic
from being sent out of ACs unnecessarily. PIM snooping techniques
can also be employed on PWs at the upstream PEs (PEs receiving
traffic from local ACs in a hierarchical VPLS) to prevent traffic
from being sent to PEs unnecessarily. This may work well for small
to medium scale deployments. However, if there are a large number of
VPLS instances with a large number of PEs per instance, then the
amount of snooping required at the upstream PEs can overwhelm the
upstream PEs.
There are two methods to reduce the burden on the upstream PEs. One
is to use PIM proxying as described in Section 2.6.6, to reduce the
control messages forwarded by a PE. The other is not to snoop on the
PWs at all, but PEs signal the snooped states to other PEs out of
band via BGP, as described in [VPLS-MCAST-TREES]. In this document,
it is assumed that snooping is performed on PWs.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
2.3.2. IPv6
In VPLS, PEs forward Ethernet frames received from CEs and as such
are agnostic of the layer-3 protocol used by the CEs. However, as a
PIM snooping PE, the PE would have to look deeper into the IP and PIM
packets and build snooping state based on that. The PIM Protocol
specifications handle both IPv4 and IPv6. The specification for PIM
snooping in this draft can be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6 payloads.
2.3.3. PIM-SM (*,*,RP)
This document does not address (*,*,RP) states in the VPLS network.
Although [PIM-SM] specifies that routers must support (*,*,RP)
states, there are very few implementations that actually support it
in actual deployments, and it is being removed from the PIM protocol
in its ongoing advancement process in IETF. Given that, this
document omits the specification relating to (*,*,RP) support.
2.4. PIM Snooping vs PIM Proxying
This document has previously alluded to PIM snooping/relay/proxying.
Details on the PIM relay/proxying solution are discussed in
Section 2.6.6. In this section, a brief description and comparison
are given.
2.4.1. Differences between PIM Snooping, Relay and Proxying
Differences between PIM snooping and relay/proxying can be summarized
as the following:
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| PIM snooping | PIM relay | PIM proxying |
+====================|=====================|=======================+
| Join/Prune messages| Join/Prune messages | Join/Prune messages |
| snooped and flooded| snooped; forwarded | consumed. Regenerated |
| everywhere | as is out of certain| ones sent out of |
| | upstream ports | certain upstream ports|
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| No PIM packets | No PIM packets | New Join/Prune |
| generated. | generated | messages generated |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| CE Join suppression| CE Join Suppression | CE Join suppression |
| not allowed | allowed | allowed |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
Note that the differences apply only to PIM Join/Prune messages. PIM
Hello messages are snooped and flooded in all cases.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Other than the above differences, most of the procedures are common
to PIM snooping and PIM relay/proxying, unless specifically stated
otherwise.
Pure PIM snooping PEs simply snoop on PIM packets as they are being
forwarded in the VPLS. As such they truly provide transparent LAN
services since no customer packets are modified or consumed or new
packets introduced in the VPLS. It is also simpler to implement than
PIM proxying. However for PIM snooping to work correctly, it is a
requirement that CE routers MUST disable Join suppression in the
VPLS.
Given that a large number of existing CE deployments do not support
disabling of Join suppression and given the operational complexity
for a provider to manage disabling of Join suppression in the VPLS,
it becomes a difficult solution to deploy. Another disadvantage of
PIM snooping is that it does not scale as well as PIM proxying. If
there are a large number of CEs in a VPLS, then every CE will see
every other CE's Join/Prune messages.
PIM relay/proxying has the advantage that it does not require Join
suppression to be disabled in the VPLS. Multicast as a VPLS service
can be very easily provided without requiring any changes on the CE
routers. PIM relay/proxying helps scale VPLS Multicast since Join/
Prune messages are only sent to certain upstream ports instead of
flooded, and in case of full proxying (vs. relay) the PEs
intelligently generate only one Join/Prune message for a given
multicast stream.
PIM proxying however loses the transparency argument since Join/
Prunes could get modified or even consumed at a PE. Also, new
packets could get introduced in the VPLS. However, this loss of
transparency is limited to PIM Join/Prune packets. It is in the
interest of optimizing multicast in the VPLS and helping a VPLS
network scale much better. Data traffic will still be completely
transparent.
2.4.2. PIM Control Message Latency
A PIM snooping/relay/proxying PE snoops on PIM Hello packets while
transparently flooding them in the VPLS. As such there is no latency
introduced by the VPLS in the delivery of PIM Hello packets to remote
CEs in the VPLS.
A PIM snooping PE snoops on PIM Join/Prune packets while
transparently flooding them in the VPLS. There is no latency
introduced by the VPLS in the delivery of PIM Join/Prune packets when
PIM snooping is employed.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
A PIM relay/proxying PE does not simply flood PIM Join/Prune packets.
This can result in additional latency for a downstream CE to receive
multicast traffic after it has sent a Join. When a downstream CE
prunes a multicast stream, the traffic SHOULD stop flowing to the CE
with no additional latency introduced by the VPLS.
Performing only proxying of Join/Prune and not Hello messages keeps
the PE behavior very similar to that of a PIM router without
introducing too much additional complexity. It keeps the PIM
proxying solution fairly simple. Since Join/Prunes are forwarded by
a PE along the slow-path and all other PIM packet types are forwarded
along the fast-path, it is very likely that packets forwarded along
the fast-path will arrive "ahead" of Join/Prune packets at a CE
router (note the stress on the fact that fast-path messages will
never arrive after Join/Prunes). Of particular importance are Hello
packets sent along the fast-path. We can construct a variety of
scenarios resulting in out of order delivery of Hellos and Join/Prune
messages. However, there should be no deviation from normal expected
behavior observed at the CE router receiving these messages out of
order.
2.4.3. When to Snoop and When to Proxy
From the above descriptions, factors that affect the choice of
snooping/relay/proxying include:
o Whether CEs do Join Suppression or not
o Whether Join/Prune latency is critical or not
o Whether the scale of PIM protocol message/states in a VPLS
requires the scaling benefit of proxying
Of the above factors, Join Suppression is the hard one - pure
snooping can only be used when Join Suppression is disabled on all
CEs. The latency associated with relay/proxying is implementation
dependent and may not be a concern at all with a particular
implementation. The scaling benefit may not be important either, in
that on a real LAN with Explicit Tracking (ET) a PIM router will need
to receive and process all PIM Join/Prune messages as well.
A PIM router indicates that Join Suppression is disabled if the T-bit
is set in the LAN Prune Delay option of its Hello message. If all
PIM routers on a LAN set the T-bit, Explicit Tracking is possible,
allowing an upstream router to track all the downstream neighbors
that have Join states for any (S,G) or (*,G). That has two benefits:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
o No need for PrunePending process - the upstream router may
immediately stop forwarding data when it receives a Prune from the
last downstream neighbor, and immediately prune to its upstream if
that's for the last downstream interface.
o For management purpose, the upstream router knows exactly which
downstream routers exist for a particular Join State.
While full proxying can be used with or without Join Suppression on
CEs and does not interfere with an upstream CE's bypass of
PrunePending process, it does proxy all its downstream CEs as a
single one to the upstream, removing the second benefit mentioned
above.
Therefore, the general rule is that if Join Suppression is enabled on
CEs then proxying or relay MUST be used and if Suppression is known
to be disabled on all CEs then either snooping, relay, or proxying
MAY be used while snooping or relay SHOULD be used.
An implementation MAY choose dynamic determination of which mode to
use, through the tracking of the above mentioned T-bit in all snooped
PIM Hello messages, or MAY simply require static provisioning.
2.5. Discovering PIM Routers
A PIM snooping PE MUST snoop on PIM Hellos received on ACs and PWs.
i.e., the PE transparently floods the PIM Hello while snooping on it.
PIM Hellos are used by the snooping PE to discover PIM routers and
their characteristics.
For each neighbor discovered by a PE, it includes an entry in the PIM
Neighbor Database with the following fields:
o Layer 2 encapsulation for the Router sending the PIM Hello.
o IP Address and address family of the Router sending the PIM Hello.
o Port (AC / PW) on which the PIM Hello was received.
o Hello TLVs
The PE should be able to interpret and act on Hello TLVs currently
defined in the PIM RFCs. The TLVs of particular interest in this
document are:
o Hello-Hold-Time
o Tracking Support
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
o DR Priority
Please refer to [PIM-SM] for a list of the Hello TLVs. When a PIM
Hello is received, the PE MUST reset the neighbor-expiry-timer to
Hello-Hold-Time. If a PE does not receive a Hello message from a
router within Hello-Hold-Time, the PE MUST remove that neighbor from
its PIM Neighbor Database. If a PE receives a Hello message from a
router with Hello-Hold-Time value set to zero, the PE MUST remove
that router from the PIM snooping state immediately.
From the PIM Neighbor Database, a PE MUST be able to use the
procedures defined in [PIM-SM] to identify the PIM Designated Router
in the VPLS instance. It should also be able to determine if
Tracking Support is active in the VPLS instance.
2.6. PIM-SM and PIM-SSM
The key characteristic of PIM-SM and PIM-SSM is explicit join
behavior. In this model, multicast traffic is only forwarded to
locations that specifically request it. The root node of a tree is
the Rendezvous Point (RP) in case of a shared tree (PIM-SM only) or
the first hop router that is directly connected to the multicast
source in the case of a shortest path tree. All the procedures
described in this section apply to both PIM-SM and PIM-SSM, except
for the fact that there is no (*,G) state in PIM-SSM.
2.6.1. Building PIM-SM Snooping States
PIM-SM and PIM-SSM snooping states are built by snooping on the PIM-
SM Join/Prune messages received on AC/PWs.
The downstream state machine of a PIM-SM snooping PE very closely
resembles the downstream state machine of PIM-SM routers. The
downstream state consists of:
Per downstream (Port, *, G):
o DownstreamJPState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Join" (J), "Prune
Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, *, G, N):
o Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
o Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
Per downstream (Port, S, G):
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
o DownstreamJPState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Join" (J), "Prune
Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, S, G, N):
o Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
o Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
Per downstream (Port, S, G, rpt):
o DownstreamJPRptState: One of { "NoInfo" (NI), "Pruned" (P), "Prune
Pending" (PP) }
Per downstream (Port, S, G, rpt, N):
o Prune Pending Timer (PPT(N))
o Join Expiry Timer (ET(N))
Where S is the address of the multicast source, G is the Group
address and N is the upstream neighbor field in the Join/Prune
message. Notice that unlike on PIM-SM routers where PPT and ET are
per (Interface, S, G), PIM snooping PEs have to maintain PPT and ET
per (Port, S, G, N). The reasons for this are explained in
Section 2.6.2.
Apart from the above states, we define the following state
summarization macros.
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G): If there is one or more Join(*,G) received on
any port with upstream neighbor N and ET(N) is active, then N is
added to UpstreamNeighbors(*,G). This set is used to determine if a
Join(*,G) or a Prune(*,G) with upstream neighbor N needs to be sent
upstream.
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G): If there is one or more Join(S,G) received on
any port with upstream neighbor N and ET(N) is active, then N is
added to UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). This set is used to determine if a
Join(S,G) or a Prune(S,G) with upstream neighbor N needs to be sent
upstream.
UpstreamPorts(*,G): This is the set of all Port(N) ports where N is
in the set UpstreamNeighbors(*,G). Multicast Streams forwarded using
a (*,G) match MUST be forwarded to these ports. So
UpstreamPorts(*,G) MUST be added to OutgoingPortList(*,G).
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
UpstreamPorts(S,G): This is the set of all Port(N) ports where N is
in the set UpstreamNeighbors(S,G). UpstreamPorts(S,G) MUST be added
to OutgoingPortList(S,G).
InheritedUpstreamPorts(S,G): This is the union of UpstreamPorts(S,G)
and UpstreamPorts(*,G).
UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt): If PruneDesired(S,G,rpt) becomes true, then
this set is set to UpstreamPorts(*,G). Otherwise, this set is empty.
UpstreamPorts(*,G) (-) UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt) MUST be added to
OutgoingPortList(S,G).
UpstreamPorts(G): This set is the union of all the UpstreamPorts(S,G)
and UpstreamPorts(*,G) for a given G. proxy (S,G) Join/Prune and
(*,G) Join/Prune messages MUST be sent to a subset of
UpstreamPorts(G) as specified in Section 2.6.6.1.
PWPorts: This is the set of all PWs.
OutgoingPortList(*,G): This is the set of all ports to which traffic
needs to be forwarded on a (*,G) match.
OutgoingPortList(S,G): This is the set of all ports to which traffic
needs to be forwarded on an (S,G) match.
See Section 2.12 on Data Forwarding Rules for the specification on
how OutgoingPortList is calculated.
NumETsActive(Port,*,G): Number of (Port,*,G,N) entries that have
Expiry Timer running. This macro keeps track of the number of
Join(*,G)s that are received on this Port with different upstream
neighbors.
NumETsActive(Port,S,G): Number of (Port,S,G,N) entries that have
Expiry Timer running. This macro keeps track of the number of
Join(S,G)s that are received on this Port with different upstream
neighbors.
RpfVectorTlvs(*,G): RPF Vectors [RPF-VECTOR] are TLVs that may be
present in received Join(*,G) messages. If present, they must be
copied to RpfVectorTlvs(*,G).
RpfVectorTlvs(S,G): RPF Vectors [RPF-VECTOR] are TLVs that may be
present in received Join(S,G) messages. If present, they must be
copied to RpfVectorTlvs(S,G).
Since there are a few differences between the downstream state
machines of PIM-SM Routers and PIM-SM snooping PEs, we specify the
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
details of the downstream state machine of PIM-SM snooping PEs at the
risk of repeating most of the text documented in [PIM-SM].
2.6.2. Explanation for per (S,G,N) states
In PIM Routing protocols, states are built per (S,G). On a router,
an (S,G) has only one RPF-Neighbor. However, a PIM snooping PE does
not have the Layer 3 routing information available to the routers in
order to determine the RPF-Neighbor for a multicast flow. It merely
discovers it by snooping the Join/Prune message. A PE could have
snooped on two or more different Join/Prune messages for the same
(S,G) that could have carried different Upstream-Neighbor fields.
This could happen during transient network conditions or due to dual-
homed sources. A PE cannot make assumptions on which one to pick,
but instead must facilitate the CE routers decide which Upstream
Neighbor gets elected the RPF-Neighbor. And for this purpose, the PE
will have to track downstream and upstream Join/Prune per (S,G,N).
2.6.3. Receiving (*,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages
A Join(*,G) or Prune(*,G) is considered "received" if the following
conditions are met:
o The port on which it arrived is not Port(N) where N is the
upstream-neighbor N of the Join/Prune(*,G), or,
o if both Port(N) and the arrival port are PWs, then there exists at
least one other (*,G,Nx) or (Sx,G,Nx) state with an AC
UpstreamPort.
For simplicity, the case where both Port(N) and the arrival port are
PWs is referred to as PW-only Join/Prune in this document. The PW-
only Join/Prune handling is so that the Port(N) PW can be added to
the related forwarding entries' OutgoingPortList to trigger Assert,
but that is only needed for those states with AC UpstreamPort. Note
that in PW-only case, it is OK for the arrival port and Port(N) to be
the same. See Appendix B for examples.
When a router receives a Join(*,G) or a Prune(*,G) with upstream
neighbor N, it must process the message as defined in the state
machine below. Note that the macro computations of the various
macros resulting from this state machine transition is exactly as
specified in the PIM-SM RFC [PIM-SM].
We define the following per-port (*,G,N) macro to help with the state
machine below.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Figure 1 : Downstream per-port (*,G) state machine in tabular form
+---------------++----------------------------------------+
| || Previous State |
| ++------------+--------------+------------+
| Event ||NoInfo (NI) | Join (J) | Prune-Pend |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
| Receive ||-> J state | -> J state | -> J state |
| Join(*,G) || Action | Action | Action |
| || RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> PP state | -> PP state|
|Prune(*,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> J state | - |
|Prune(*,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
|NumETsActive>1 || | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|PPT(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
| || | Action | Action |
| || | PPTExpiry(N) |PPTExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> NI state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> J state | - |
|and || | Action | |
|NumETsActive>1 || | ETExpiry(N) | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
Action RxJoin(N):
If ET(N) is not already running, then start ET(N). Otherwise
restart ET(N). If N is not already in UpstreamNeighbors(*,G),
then add N to UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) and trigger a Join(*,G) with
upstream neighbor N to be forwarded upstream. If there are RPF
Vector TLVs in the received (*,G) message and if they are
different from the recorded RpfVectorTlvs(*,G), then copy them
into RpfVectorTlvs(*,G).
Action PPTExpiry(N):
Same as Action ETExpiry(N) below, plus Send a Prune-Echo(*,G) with
upstream-neighbor N on the downstream port.
Action ETExpiry(N):
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). Delete neighbor state
(Port,*,G,N). If there are no other (Port,*,G) states with
NumETsActive(Port,*,G) > 0, transition DownstreamJPState [PIM-SM]
to NoInfo. If there are no other (Port,*,G,N) state (different
ports but for the same N), remove N from UpstreamPorts(*,G) - this
also serves as a trigger for Upstream FSM (JoinDesired(*,G,N)
becomes FALSE).
2.6.4. Receiving (S,G) PIM-SM Join/Prune Messages
A Join(S,G) or Prune(S,G) is considered "received" if the following
conditions are met:
o The port on which it arrived is not Port(N) where N is the
upstream-neighbor N of the Join/Prune(S,G), or,
o if both Port(N) and the arrival port are PWs, then there exists at
least one other (*,G,Nx) or (S,G,Nx) state with an AC
UpstreamPort.
For simplicity, the case where both Port(N) and the arrival port are
PWs is referred to as PW-only Join/Prune in this document. The PW-
only Join/Prune handling is so that the Port(N) PW can be added to
the related forwarding entries' OutgoingPortList to trigger Assert,
but that is only needed for those states with AC UpstreamPort. See
Appendix B for examples.
When a router receives a Join(S,G) or a Prune(S,G) with upstream
neighbor N, it must process the message as defined in the state
machine below. Note that the macro computations of the various
macros resulting from this state machine transition is exactly as
specified in [PIM-SM][PIM-SM].
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Figure 2: Downstream per-port (S,G) state machine in tabular form
+---------------++----------------------------------------+
| || Previous State |
| ++------------+--------------+------------+
| Event ||NoInfo (NI) | Join (J) | Prune-Pend |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
| Receive ||-> J state | -> J state | -> J state |
| Join(S,G) || Action | Action | Action |
| || RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) | RxJoin(N) |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> PP state | - |
|Prune (S,G) and|| | Start PPT(N) | |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|Receive || - | -> J state | - |
|Prune(S,G) and || | Start PPT(N) | |
NumETsActive>1 || | | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|PPT(N) expires || - | -> J state | -> NI state|
| || | Action | Action |
| || | PPTExpiry(N) |PPTExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> NI state | -> NI state|
|and || | Action | Action |
|NumETsActive<=1|| | ETExpiry(N) | ETExpiry(N)|
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
|ET(N) expires || - | -> J state | - |
|and || | Action | |
|NumETsActive>1 || | ETExpiry(N) | |
+---------------++------------+--------------+------------+
Action RxJoin(N):
If ET(N) is not already running, then start ET(N). Otherwise,
restart ET(N).
If N is not already in UpstreamNeighbors(S,G), then add N to
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) and trigger a Join(S,G) with upstream
neighbor N to be forwarded upstream. If there are RPF Vector TLVs
in the received (S,G) message and if they are different from the
recorded RpfVectorTlvs(S,G), then copy them into
RpfVectorTlvs(S,G).
Action PPTExpiry(N):
Same as Action ETExpiry(N) below, plus Send a Prune-Echo(S,G) with
upstream-neighbor N on the downstream port.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Action ETExpiry(N):
Disable timers ET(N) and PPT(N). Delete neighbor state
(Port,S,G,N). If there are no other (Port,S,G) states with
NumETsActive(Port,S,G) > 0, transition DownstreamJPState to
NoInfo. If there are no other (Port,S,G,N) state (different ports
but for the same N), remove N from UpstreamPorts(S,G) - this also
serves as a trigger for Upstream FSM (JoinDesired(S,G,N) becomes
FALSE).
2.6.5. Receiving (S,G,rpt) Join/Prune Messages
A Join(S,G,rpt) or Prune(S,G,rpt) is "received" when the port on
which it was received is not also the port on which the upstream-
neighbor N of the Join/Prune(S,G,rpt) was learnt.
While it is important to ensure that the (S,G) and (*,G) state
machines allow for handling per (S,G,N) states, it is not as
important for (S,G,rpt) states. It suffices to say that the
downstream (S,G,rpt) state machine is the same as what is defined in
section 4.5.4 of the PIM-SM RFC [PIM-SM].
2.6.6. Sending Join/Prune Messages Upstream
This section applies only to a PIM relay/proxying PE and not to a PIM
snooping PE.
A full PIM proxying (not relay) PE MUST implement the Upstream FSM
for which the procedures are similar to what is defined in section
4.5.6 of [PIM-SM].
For the purposes of the Upstream FSM, a Join or Prune message with
upstream neighbor N is "seen" on a PIM relay/proxying PE if the port
on which the message was received is also Port(N), and the port is an
AC. The AC requirement is needed because a Join received on the
Port(N) PW must not suppress this PE's Join on that PW.
A PIM relay PE does not implement the Upstream FSM. It simply
forwards received Join/Prune messages out of the same set of upstream
ports as in the PIM proxying case.
In order to correctly facilitate assert among the CE routers, such
Join/Prunes need to send not only towards the upstream neighbor, but
also on certain PWs as described below.
If RpfVectorTlvs(*,G) is not empty, then it must be encoded in a
Join(*,G) message sent upstream.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
If RpfVectorTlvs(S,G) is not empty, then it must be encoded in a
Join(S,G) message sent upstream.
2.6.6.1. Where to send Join/Prune messages
The following rules apply, to both forwarded (in case of PIM relay),
refresh and triggered (in case of PIM proxying) (S,G)/(*,G) Join/
Prune messages.
o The upstream neighbor field in the Join/Prune to be sent is set to
the N in the corresponding Upstream FSM.
o if Port(N) is an AC, send the message to Port(N).
o Additionally, if OutgoingPortList(X,G,N) contains at least one AC,
then the message MUST be sent to at least all the PWs in
UpstreamPorts(G) (for (*,G)) or InheritedUpstreamPorts(S,G) (for
(S,G)). Alternatively, the message MAY be sent to all PWs.
Sending to a subset of PWs as described above guarantees that if
traffic (of the same flow) from two upstream routers were to reach
this PE, then the two routers will receive from each other,
triggering assert.
Sending to all PWs guarantees that if two upstream routers both send
traffic for the same flow (even if it is to different sets of
downstream PEs), then they'll receive from each other, triggering
assert.
2.7. Bidirectional-PIM (BIDIR-PIM)
BIDIR-PIM is a variation of PIM-SM. The main differences between
PIM-SM and Bidirectional-PIM are as follows:
o There are no source-based trees, and source-specific multicast is
not supported (i.e., no (S,G) states) in PIM- BIDIR.
o Multicast traffic can flow up the shared tree in BIDIR-PIM.
o To avoid forwarding loops, one router on each link is elected as
the Designated Forwarder (DF) for each RP in BIDIR-PIM.
The main advantage of BIDIR-PIM is that it scales well for many-to-
many applications. However, the lack of source-based trees means
that multicast traffic is forced to remain on the shared tree.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
As described in [BIDIR-PIM], parts of a BIDIR-PIM enabled network may
forward traffic without exchanging Join/Prune messages, for instance
between DF's and the Rendezvous Point Link (RPL).
As the described procedures for PIM snooping rely on the presence of
Join/Prune messages, enabling PIM snooping on BIDIR-PIM networks
could break the BIDIR-PIM functionality. Deploying PIM snooping on
BIDIR-PIM enabled networks will require some further study. Some
thoughts are gathered in Appendix A.
2.8. Interaction with IGMP Snooping
Whenever IGMP snooping is enabled in conjunction with PIM snooping in
the same VPLS instance the PE SHOULD follow these rules:
o To maintain the list of multicast routers and ports on which they
are attached, the PE SHOULD NOT use the rules as described in
RFC4541 [IGMP-SNOOP] but SHOULD rely on the neighbors discovered
by PIM snooping . This list SHOULD then be used to apply the
forwarding rule as described in 2.1.1.(1) of RFC4541 [IGMP-SNOOP].
o If the PE supports proxy-reporting, an IGMP membership learned
only on a port to which a PIM neighbor is attached but not
elsewhere SHOULD NOT be included in the summarized upstream report
sent to that port.
2.9. PIM-DM
The characteristics of PIM-DM is flood and prune behavior. Shortest
path trees are built as a multicast source starts transmitting.
2.9.1. Building PIM-DM Snooping States
PIM-DM snooping states are built by snooping on the PIM-DM Join,
Prune, Graft and State Refresh messages received on AC/PWs and State-
Refresh Messages sent on AC/PWs. By snooping on these PIM-DM
messages, a PE builds the following states per (S,G,N) where S is the
address of the multicast source, G is the Group address and N is the
upstream neighbor to which Prunes/Grafts are sent by downstream CEs:
Per PIM (S,G,N):
Port PIM (S,G,N) Prune State:
* DownstreamPState(S,G,N,Port): One of {"NoInfo" (NI), "Pruned"
(P), "PrunePending" (PP)}
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
* Prune Pending Timer (PPT)
* Prune Timer (PT)
* Upstream Port (valid if the PIM(S,G,N) Prune State is
"Pruned").
2.9.2. PIM-DM Downstream Per-Port PIM(S,G,N) State Machine
The downstream per-port PIM(S,G,N) state machine is as defined in
section 4.4.2 of [PIM-DM] with a few changes relevant to PIM
snooping. When reading section 4.4.2 of [PIM-DM] for the purposes of
PIM-snooping please be aware that the downstream states are built per
(S, G, N, Downstream-Port} in PIM-snooping and not per {Downstream-
Interface, S, G} as in a PIM-DM router. As noted in the previous
Section 2.9.1, the states (DownstreamPState) and timers (PPT and PT)
are per (S,G,N,P).
2.9.3. Triggering ASSERT election in PIM-DM
Since PIM-DM is a flood-and-prune protocol, traffic is flooded to all
routers unless explicitly pruned. Since PIM-DM routers do not prune
on non-RPF interfaces, PEs should typically not receive Prunes on
Port(RPF-neighbor). So the asserting routers should typically be in
pim_oiflist(S,G). In most cases, assert election should occur
naturally without any special handling since data traffic will be
forwarded to the asserting routers.
However, there are some scenarios where a prune might be received on
a port which is also an upstream port (UP). If we prune the port
from pim_oiflist(S,G), then it would not be possible for the
asserting routers to determine if traffic arrived on their downstream
port. This can be fixed by adding pim_iifs(S,G) to pim_oiflist(S,G)
so that data traffic flows to the UP ports.
2.10. PIM Proxy
As noted earlier, PIM snooping will work correctly only if Join
Suppression is disabled in the VPLS. If Join Suppression is enabled
in the VPLS, then PEs MUST do PIM relay/proxying for VPLS multicast
to work correctly. This section applies specifically to the full
proxying case and not relay.
2.10.1. Upstream PIM Proxy behavior
A PIM proxying PE consumes Join/Prune messages and regenerates PIM
Join/Prune messages to be sent upstream by implementing Upstream FSM
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
as specified in the PIM RFC. This is the only difference from PIM
relay.
The source IP address in PIM packets sent upstream SHOULD be the
address of a PIM downstream neighbor in the corresponding join/prune
state. The address picked MUST NOT be the upstream neighbor field to
be encoded in the packet. The layer 2 encapsulation for the selected
source IP address MUST be the encapsulation recorded in the PIM
Neighbor database for that IP address.
2.11. Directly Connected Multicast Source
If there is a source in the CE network that connects directly into
the VPLS instance, then multicast traffic from that source MUST be
sent to all PIM routers on the VPLS instance apart from the IGMP
receivers in the VPLS. If there is already (S,G) or (*,G) snooping
state that is formed on any PE, this will not happen per the current
forwarding rules and guidelines. So, in order to determine if
traffic needs to be flooded to all routers, a PE must be able to
determine if the traffic came from a host on that LAN. There are
three ways to address this problem:
o The PE would have to do ARP snooping to determine if a source is
directly connected.
o Another option is to have configuration on all PEs to say there
are CE sources that are directly connected to the VPLS instance
and disallow snooping for the groups for which the source is going
to send traffic. This way traffic from that source to those
groups will always be flooded within the provider network.
o A third option is to require that sources of CE multicast traffic
must be behind a router.
This document recommends the third option - sources traffic must be
behind a router.
2.12. Data Forwarding Rules
First we define the rules that are common to PIM-SM and PIM-DM PEs.
Forwarding rules for each protocol type is specified in the sub-
sections.
If there is no matching forwarding state, then the PE SHOULD discard
the packet, i.e., the UserDefinedPortList below SHOULD be empty.
The following general rules MUST be followed when forwarding
multicast traffic in a VPLS:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
o Traffic arriving on a port MUST NOT be forwarded back onto the
same port.
o Due to VPLS Split-Horizon rules, traffic ingressing on a PW MUST
NOT be forwarded to any other PW.
2.12.1. PIM-SM Data Forwarding Rules
Per the rules in [PIM-SM] and per the additional rules specified in
this document,
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = immediate_olist(*,G) (+)
UpstreamPorts(*,G) (+)
Port(PimDR)
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = inherited_olist(S,G) (+)
UpstreamPorts(S,G) (+)
(UpstreamPorts(*,G) (-)
UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt)) (+)
Port(PimDR)
[PIM-SM] specifies how immediate_olist(*,G) and inherited_olist(S,G)
are built. PimDR is the IP address of the PIM DR in the VPLS.
The PIM-SM snooping forwarding rules are defined below in pseudocode:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
S is the Source IP Address of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is (S,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList(S,G)
Else if there is (*,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList(*,G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
First if there is (S,G) state on the PE, then the set of outgoing
ports is OutgoingPortList(S,G).
Otherwise if there is (*,G) state on the PE, the set of outgoing
ports is OutgoingPortList(*,G).
The packet is forwarded to the selected set of outgoing ports while
observing the general rules above in Section 2.12
2.12.2. PIM-DM Data Forwarding Rules
The PIM-DM snooping data forwarding rules are defined below in
pseudocode:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
S is the Source IP Address of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is (S,G) state on the PE
Then
OutgoingPortList = olist(S,G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
If there is forwarding state for (S,G), then forward the packet to
olist(S,G) while observing the general rules above in section
Section 2.12
[PIM-DM] specifies how olist(S,G) is constructed.
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security Considerations
Security considerations provided in VPLS solution documents (i.e.,
[VPLS-LDP] and [VPLS-BGP]) apply to this document as well.
5. Contributors
Yetik Serbest, Suresh Boddapati co-authored earlier versions.
Karl (Xiangrong) Cai and Princy Elizabeth made significant
contributions to bring the specification to its current state,
especially in the area of Join forwarding rules.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
6. Acknowledgements
Many members of the L2VPN and PIM working groups have contributed to
and provided valuable comments and feedback to this document,
including Vach Kompella, Shane Amante, Sunil Khandekar, Rob Nath,
Marc Lassere, Yuji Kamite, Yiqun Cai, Ali Sajassi, Jozef Raets,
Himanshu Shah (Ciena), Himanshu Shah (Alcatel-Lucent).
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[BIDIR-PIM]
Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, 2007.
[PIM-DM] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol
Independent Multicast Version 2 - Dense Mode
Specification", RFC 3973, 2005.
[PIM-SM] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast- Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, 2006.
[PIM-SSM] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1997.
[RPF-VECTOR]
Wijnands, I., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, 2009.
7.2. Informative References
[IGMP-SNOOP]
Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for IGMP and MLD snooping PEs", RFC 4541,
2006.
[VPLS-BGP]
Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC 4761,
2007.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
[VPLS-LDP]
Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN
Services using LDP Signaling", RFC 4762, 2007.
[VPLS-MCAST-REQ]
Kamite, Y., Wada, Y., Serbest, Y., Morin, T., and L. Fang,
"Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual Private LAN
Services", RFC 5501, 2009.
[VPLS-MCAST-TREES]
Aggarwal, R., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multicast in VPLS", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-11, Work
in Progress.
Appendix A. BIDIR-PIM Thoughts
This section describes some guidelines that may be used to preserve
BIDIR-PIM functionality in combination with Pim snooping.
In order to preserve BIDIR-PIM Pim snooping routers need to set up
forwarding states so that :
o on the RPL all traffic is forwarded to all Port(N)
o on any other interface traffic is always forwarded to the DF
The information needed to setup these states may be obtained by :
o determining the mapping between group(range) and RP
o snooping and storing DF election information
o determining where the RPL is, this could be achieved by static
configuration, or by combining the information mentioned in
previous bullets.
A.1. BIDIR-PIM Data Forwarding Rules
The BIDIR-PIM snooping forwarding rules are defined below in
pseudocode:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
BEGIN
iif is the incoming port of the multicast packet.
G is the Destination IP Address of the multicast packet.
If there is forwarding state for G
Then
OutgoingPortList = olist(G)
Else
OutgoingPortList = UserDefinedPortList
Endif
If iif is an AC
Then
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) iif
Else
## iif is a PW
OutgoingPortList = OutgoingPortList (-) PWPorts
Endif
Forward the packet to OutgoingPortList.
END
If there is forwarding state for G, then forward the packet to
olist(G) while observing the general rules above in Section 2.12
[BIDIR-PIM] specifies how olist(G) is constructed.
Appendix B. Example Network Scenario
Let us consider the scenario in Figure 3.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
An Example Network for Triggering Assert
+------+ AC3 +------+
| PE2 |-----| CE3 |
/| | +------+
/ +------+ |
/ | |
/ | |
/PW12 | |
/ | /---\
/ |PW23 | S |
/ | \---/
/ | |
/ | |
/ | |
+------+ / +------+ |
+------+ | PE1 |/ PW13 | PE3 | +------+
| CE1 |-----| |-------------| |-----| CE4 |
+------+ AC1 +------+ +------+ AC4 +------+
|
|AC2
+------+
| CE2 |
+------+
In the examples below, JT(Port,S,G,N) is the downstream Join Expiry
Timer on the specified Port for the (S,G) with upstream neighbor N.
B.1. Pim Snooping Example
In the network depicted in Figure 3, S is the source of a multicast
stream (S,G). CE1 and CE2 both have two ECMP routes to reach the
source.
1. CE1 Sends a Join(S,G) with Upstream Neighbor(S,G) = CE3.
2. PE1 snoops on the Join(S,G) and builds forwarding states since it
is received on an AC. It also floods the Join(S,G) in the VPLS.
PE2 snoops on the Join(S,G) and builds forwarding state since the
Join(S,G)is targeting a neighbor residing on an AC. PE3 does not
create forwarding state for (S,G) because this is a PW-only join
and there is neither existing (*,G) state with an AC in
UpstreamPorts(*,G) nor an existing (S,G) state with an AC in
UpstreamPorts(S,G). Both PE2 and PE3 will also flood the
Join(S,G) in the VPLS
The resulting states at the PEs is as follows:
At PE1:
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, PW12 }
At PE2:
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW12, AC3 }
At PE3:
No (S,G) state
3. The multicast stream (S,G) flows along
CE3 -> PE2 -> PE1 -> CE1
4. Now CE2 sends a Join(S,G) with Upstream Neighbor(S,G) = CE4.
5. All PEs snoop on the Join(S,G), build forwarding state and
flood the Join(S,G) in the VPLS. Note that for PE2 even though
this is a PW-only join, forwarding state is built on this Join(S,G)
since PE2 has existing (S,G) state with an AC in UpstreamPorts(S,G)
The resulting states at the PEs:
At PE1:
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = active
JT(AC2,S,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3, CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12, PW13 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, PW12, AC2, PW13 }
At PE2:
JT(PW12,S,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3, CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3, PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW12, AC3, PW23 }
At PE3:
JT(PW13,S,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC4 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW13, AC4 }
6. The multicast stream (S,G) flows into the VPLS from the two CEs
CE3 and CE4. PE2 forwards the stream received from CE3 to PW23
and PE3 forwards the stream to AC4. This facilitates the CE
routers to trigger assert election. Let us say CE3 becomes the
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
assert winner.
7. CE3 sends an Assert message to the VPLS. The PEs flood the
Assert message without examining it.
8. CE4 stops sending the multicast stream to the VPLS.
9. CE2 notices an RPF change due to Assert and sends a Prune(S,G)
with Upstream Neighbor = CE4. CE2 also sends a Join(S,G) with
Upstream Neighbor = CE3.
10. All the PEs start a prune-pend timer on the ports on which
they received the Prune(S,G). When the prune-pend timer expires,
all PEs will remove the downstream (S,G,CE4) states.
Resulting states at the PEs:
At PE1:
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, AC2, PW12 }
At PE2:
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW12, AC3 }
At PE3:
JT(PW13,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW13, PW23 }
Note that at this point at PE3, since there is no AC in
OutgoingPortList(S,G) and no (*,G) or (S,G) state with an AC in
UpstreamPorts(*,G) or UpstreamPorts(S,G) respectively, the existing
(S,G) state at PE3 can also be removed. So finally:
At PE3:
No (S,G) state
Note that at the end of the assert election, there should be no
duplicate traffic forwarded downstream and traffic should flow only
on the desired path. Also note that there are no unnecessary (S,G)
states on PE3 after the assert election.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
B.2. PIM Proxy Example with (S,G) / (*,G) interaction
In the same network, let us assume CE4 is the Upstream Neighbor
towards the RP for G.
JPST(S,G,N) is the JP sending timer for the (S,G) with upstream
neighbor N.
1. CE1 Sends a Join(S,G) with Upstream Neighbor(S,G) = CE3.
2. PE1 consumes the Join(S,G) and builds forwarding state since the
Join(S,G) is received on an AC.
PE2 consumes the Join(S,G) and builds forwarding state since the
Join(S,G) is targeting a neighbor residing on an AC.
PE3 consumes the Join(S,G) but does not create forwarding state for
(S,G) since this is a PW-only join and there is neither existing (*,G)
state with an AC in UpstreamPorts(*,G) nor an existing (S,G) state with
an AC in UpstreamPorts(S,G)
The resulting states at the PEs is as follows:
PE1 states:
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
JPST(S,G,CE3) = t_periodic
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, PW12 }
PE2 states:
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
JPST(S,G,CE3) = t_periodic
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW12, AC3 }
PE3 states:
No (S,G) state
Joins are triggered as follows:
PE1 triggers a Join(S,G) targeting CE3. Since the Join(S,G) was received
on an AC and is targeting a neighbor that is residing across a PW, the
triggered Join(S,G) is sent on all PWs.
PE2 triggers a Join(S,G) targeting CE3. Since the Joins(S,G) is
targeting a neighbor residing on an AC, it only sends the join on AC3.
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
PE3 ignores the Join(S,G) since this is a PW-only join and there is
neither existing (*,G) state with an AC in UpstreamPorts(*,G) nor an
existing (S,G) state with an AC in UpstreamPorts(S,G)
3. The multicast stream (S,G) flows along CE3 -> PE2 -> PE1 -> CE1.
4. Now let us say CE2 sends a Join(*,G) with UpstreamNeighbor(*,G) = CE4.
5. PE1 consumes the Join(*,G) and builds forwarding state since the
Join(*,G) is received on an AC.
PE2 consumes the Join(*,G) and though this is a PW-only join, forwarding
state is build on this Join(*,G) since PE2 has existing (S,G) state with
an AC in UpstreamPorts(S,G). However, since this is a PW-only join, PE2
only adds the PW towards PE3 (PW23) into UpstreamPorts(*,G) and hence
into OutgoingPortList(*,G). It does not add the PW towards PE1 (PW12)
into OutgoingPortsList(*,G)
PE3 consumes the Join(*,G) and builds forwarding state since the
Join(*,G) is targeting a neighbor residing on an AC.
The resulting states at the PEs is as follows:
PE1 states:
JT(AC1,*,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
JPST(*,G,CE4) = t_periodic
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { PW13 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { AC2, PW13 }
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = active
JPST(S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, PW12, PW13 }
PE2 states:
JT(PW12,*,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(G) = { PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW23 }
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = active
JPST(S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW12, AC3, PW23 }
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
PE3 states:
JT(PW13,*,G,CE4) = JP_HoldTime
JPST(*,G,CE4) = t_periodic
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { AC4 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW13, AC4 }
Joins are triggered as follows:
PE1 triggers a Join(*,G) targeting CE4. Since the Join(*,G) was received
on an AC and is targeting a neighbor that is residing across a PW, the
triggered Join(S,G) is sent on all PWs.
PE2 does not trigger a Join(*,G) based on this join since this is a
PW-only join.
PE3 triggers a Join(*,G) targeting CE4. Since the Join(*,G) is targeting
a neighbor residing on an AC, it only sends the join on AC4.
6. In case traffic is not flowing yet (i.e. step 3 is delayed to come after
step 6) and in the interim JPST(S,G,CE3) on PE1 expires, causing it to
send a refresh Join(S,G) targeting CE3, since the refresh Join(S,G) is
targeting a neighbor that is residing across a PW, the refresh Join(S,G)
is sent on all PWs.
7. Note that PE1 refreshes its JT timer based on reception of refresh joins
from CE1 and CE2
PE2 consumes the Join(S,G) and refreshes the JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) timer.
PE3 consumes the Join(S,G). It also builds forwarding state on this
Join(S,G), even though this is a PW-only join, since now PE2 has existing
(*,G) state with an AC in UpstreamPorts(*,G). However, since this is a
PW-only join, PE3 only adds the PW towards PE2 (PW23) into
UpstreamPorts(S,G) and hence into OutgoingPortList(S,G). It does not add
the PW towards PE1 (PW13) into OutgoingPortList(S,G).
PE3 States:
JT(PW13,*,G,CE4) = active
JPST(S,G,CE4) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { AC4 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW13, AC4 }
JT(PW13,S,G,CE3) = JP_HoldTime
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW13, AC4, PW23 }
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Joins are triggered as follows:
PE2 already has (S,G) state, so it does not trigger a Join(S,G)
based on reception of this refresh join.
PE3 does not trigger a Join(S,G) based on this join since this is a
PW-only join.
8. The multicast stream (S,G) flows into the VPLS from the two
CEs, CE3 and CE4. PE2 forwards the stream received from CE3 to
PW12 and PW23. At the same time PE3 forwards the stream
received from CE4 to PW13 and PW23.
The stream received over PW12 and PW13 is forwarded by PE1 to
AC1 and AC2.
The stream received by PE3 over PW23 is forwarded to AC4. The
stream received by PE2 over PW23 is forwarded to AC3. Either of
these facilitates the CE routers to trigger assert election.
9. CE3 and/or CE4 send(s) Assert message(s) to the VPLS. The PEs
flood the Assert message(s) without examining it.
10. CE3 becomes the (S,G) assert winner and CE4 stops sending the
multicast stream to the VPLS.
11. CE2 notices an RPF change due to Assert and sends a
Prune(S,G,rpt) with Upstream Neighbor = CE4.
12. PE1 consumes the Prune(S,G,rpt) and since PruneDesired(S,G,Rpt,CE4) is
TRUE, it triggers a Prune(S,G,rpt) to CE4. Since the prune is
targeting a neighbor across a PW, it is sent on all PWs.
PE2 consumes the Prune(S,G,rpt) and does not trigger any prune
based on this Prune(S,G,rpt) since this was a PW-only prune.
PE3 consumes the Prune(S,G,rpt) and since PruneDesired(S,G,rpt,CE4)
is TRUE it sends the Prune(S,G,rpt) on AC4.
PE1 states:
JT(AC2,*,G,CE4) = active
JPST(*,G,CE4) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { PW13 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { AC2, PW13 }
JT(AC2,S,G,CE4) = JP_Holdtime with FLAG sgrpt prune
JPST(S,G,CE4) = none, since this is sent along
with the Join(*,G) to CE4 based
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
on JPST(*,G,CE4) expiry
UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt) = { PW13 }
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G,rpt) = { CE4 }
JT(AC1,S,G,CE3) = active
JPST(S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW12 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { AC1, PW12, AC2 }
At PE2:
JT(PW12,*,G,CE4) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW23 }
JT(PW12,S,G,CE4) = JP_Holdtime with FLAG sgrpt prune
JPST(S,G,CE4) = none, since this was created
off a PW-only prune
UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt) = { PW23 }
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G,rpt) = { CE4 }
JT(PW12,S,G,CE3) = active
JPST(S,G,CE3) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { AC3 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW12, AC3 }
At PE3:
JT(PW13,*,G,CE4) = active
JPST(*,G,CE4) = active
UpstreamNeighbors(*,G) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(*,G) = { AC4 }
OutgoingPortList(*,G) = { PW13, AC4 }
JT(PW13,S,G,CE4) = JP_Holdtime with S,G,rpt prune flag
JPST(S,G,CE4) = none, since this is sent along
with the Join(*,G) to CE4 based
on JPST(*,G,CE4) expiry
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G,rpt) = { CE4 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G,rpt) = { AC4 }
JT(PW13,S,G,CE3) = active
JPST(S,G,CE3) = none, since this state is
created by PW-only join
UpstreamNeighbors(S,G) = { CE3 }
UpstreamPorts(S,G) = { PW23 }
OutgoingPortList(S,G) = { PW23 }
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft l2vpn-pim-snooping October 2014
Even in this example, at the end of the (S,G) / (*,G) assert
election, there should be no duplicate traffic forwarded downstream
and traffic should flow only to the desired CEs.
However, the reason we don't have duplicate traffic is because one of
the CEs stops sending traffic due to assert, not because we don't
have any forwarding state in the PEs to do this forwarding.
Authors' Addresses
Olivier Dornon
Alcatel-Lucent
50 Copernicuslaan
Antwerp, B2018
Email: olivier.dornon@alcatel-lucent.com
Jayant Kotalwar
Alcatel-Lucent
701 East Middlefield Rd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: jayant.kotalwar@alcatel-lucent.com
Venu Hemige
Email: vhemige@gmail.com
Ray Qiu
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale CA 94089
Email: rqiu@juniper.net
Jeffrey Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Dornon, et al. Expires April 25, 2015 [Page 39]
