Network Working Group V. Kamath Internet-Draft VMware Intended status: Standards Track R. Chokkanathapuram Sundaram Expires: May 4, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc. R. Banthia Apstra A. Gopal Cisco Systems, Inc. October 31, 2020 PIM Null-Register packing draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-06 Abstract In PIM-SM networks PIM Register messages are sent by the Designated Router (DR) to the Rendezvous Point (RP) to signal the presence of Multicast sources in the network. There are periodic PIM Null- Registers sent by a DR to the RP to keep the state alive at the RP as long as the source is active. The PIM Null-Register message carries information about a single Multicast source and group. This document defines a standard to send information about multiple multicast sources and multicast groups in a single PIM Null-Register message, in a packed format. This document also discusses the interoperability between PIM routers that support the new packed message format and PIM routers that do not support the new format. 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 May 4, 2021. Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Packed Register Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PIM Packed Null-Register message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. PIM Packed Register-Stop message format . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. PIM RP router version downgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Fragmentation consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction PIM Null-Registers are sent by a DR periodically for Multicast streams to keep the states active on the RP, as long as the source is active. As the number of multicast sources increases, the number of PIM Null-Register messages that are sent also increases. This results in more PIM packet processing at the RP and at the DRs. The control plane policing (COPP), monitors the packets that are processed by the control plane. Due to the high rate at which Null- Registers are received at the RP, this can lead to COPP drops of Multicast PIM Null-Register messages. This document defines a method to efficiently pack multiple PIM Null-Registers [[RFC7761] (Section 4.4)] and Register-Stops [[RFC7761] (Section 3.2)] into a Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 single message as these packets anyway do not contain encapsulated data. The document also discusses interoperability with PIM routers that do not understand the new packet format. 1.1. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 1.2. Terminology RP: Rendezvous Point DR: Designated Router 2. Packed Register Capability To ensure compatibility with routers that do not support processing of the packed format, A router (DR) can decide to pack multiple Null- Register messages based on the capability received from the RP as part of Register-Stop. Thus a DR will switch to the packed format only when it learns RP is capable of handling the packed Null- Register messages. Conversely, a DR that does not support the new format can continue generating the PIM Null-Register using the current format. To exchange the capability information in the Register-Stop message, the "reserved" field is used to indicate this capability in those Register-Stop messages. One bit of the reserved field is used to indicate the "packing" capability (P bit). The rest of the bits in the "Reserved" field will be retained for future use. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |PIM Ver| Type |P| Reserved | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Address (Encoded-Group format) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: PIM Register-Stop message with capability option Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 PIM Version, Type, Checksum, Group Address, Source Address: Same as [RFC7761] (Section 4.9.4) P: Capability bit (flag bit 7) used to indicate support for the Packed-Register Capability 3. PIM Packed Null-Register message PIM Packed Null-Register message format includes a count to indicate the number of Null-Register records in the message. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |PIM Ver| Type |Subtype| FB | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Count | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | . . . . . . . . . Group Address[N] . | Source Address[N] | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: PIM Packed Null-Register message format PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum: Same as [RFC7761] (Section 4.9.3) Type, SubType: The new packed Null-Register Type and SubType values TBD. [RFC8736] Count: The number of packed Null-Register records. A record consists of a Group Address and Source Address pair. Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 Group Address, Source Address: Same as [RFC7761] (Section 4.9.4) 4. PIM Packed Register-Stop message format The PIM Packed Register-Stop message includes a count to indicate the number of records that are present in the message. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |PIM Ver| Type |Subtype| FB | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Count | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group Address[1] (Encoded-Group format) | | Source Address[1] (Encoded-Unicast format) | . . . . . . . . . Group Address[N] . | Source Address[N] | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: PIM Packed Register-Stop message format PIM Version, Reserved, Checksum: Same as [RFC7761] (Section 4.9.4) Type: The new Register Stop Type and SubType values TBD Count: The number of packed Register-Stop records. A record consists of a Group Address and Source Address pair. Group Address, Source Address: Same as [RFC7761] (Section 4.9.4) Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 5. Protocol operation The following combinations are possible: 1. DR and RP both support the PIM Packed Register format * As specified in [[RFC7761]], the DR sends PIM Register messages towards the RP when a new source is detected. * An RP supporting this specification SHOULD set the P-bit in the corresponding Register-Stop messages. * When a Register-Stop message with the P-bit set is received, the DR SHOULD send Packed Null-Register messages (Section 3) to the RP instead of multiple Register messages with the N-bit set ([[RFC7761]]). * The RP, after receiving a Packed Null-Register message SHOULD start sending Packed Register-Stop messages (Section 4) to the corresponding DR instead of individual Register-Stop messages. 2. DR supports but RP does not support PIM Packed Register format * As specified in [[RFC7761]], DR sends PIM Register towards the RP. * RP sends a Register-Stop in the [[RFC7761]] without any capability information. * DR then sends Null-Registers in the [[RFC7761]] format. 3. RP supports but DR doesn't support the PIM Packed Register format * As specified in [[RFC7761]], DR sends the PIM Register towards the RP. * RP sends a PIM Packed Register-Stop towards the DR that includes capability information. * Since the the DR doesn't support the PIM Packet Register format, it will always send registers according to [[RFC7761]]. 6. PIM Anycast RP considerations The PIM Packed Register format should be enabled only if it is supported by all PIM Anycast RP [[RFC4610]] members in the RP set for An RP address. Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 7. PIM RP router version downgrade Consider a PIM RP router that supports PIM Register Packing and then downgrades to a software version which does not support PIM Register Packing. The DR that sends the PIM Packed Register message will not get a PIM Register-Stop message back. In such scenarios the DR MUST send an unpacked PIM Register and check the PIM Register-Stop to see if the capability bit (P-bit) for PIM Packed Register is set or not. If it is not set then the DR will continue sending unpacked PIM Register messages. 8. Fragmentation consideration When building a PIM Packed Register message using the packed-register format, a router should include as many records as possible based on the path MTU towards RP, if path MTU discovery is done. Otherwise, the number of records should be limited to the MTU of the outgoing interface. 9. Security Considerations General Register messages security considerations from [[RFC7761]] apply. As mentioned in [[RFC7761]], Register messages and Register- Stop messages are forwarded by intermediate routers to their destination using normal IP forwarding. Without data origin authentication, an attacker who is located anywhere in the network may be able to forge a Register or Register-Stop message. We next consider the effect of a forgery of each of these messages. By forging a Register message, an attacker can cause the RP to inject forged traffic onto the shared multicast tree. By forging a Register-Stop message, an attacker can prevent a legitimate DR from registering packets to the RP. This can prevent local hosts on that LAN from sending multicast packets. The above two PIM messages are not changed by intermediate routers and need only be examined by the intended receiver. Thus, these messages can be authenticated end-to-end. Attacks on Register and Register-Stop messages do not apply to a PIM-SSM-only implementation, as these messages are not required for PIM-SSM. There is another case where a spoof Register can be sent to make it appear that is is from the RP, and that the RP supports this new packed capability when it does not. This can cause Null-Registers to not be received by the RP. But standard methods to prevent spoofing should take care of this case. Spoofing methods like uRPF, or on domain boundary, filter out packets coming from the outside from addresses that belong to routers inside. Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 All these considerations apply equally to the [[RFC7761]] messages. 10. IANA Considerations This document requires the assignment of "Capability bit" (P-bit), flag bit 7 in the PIM Null-Register message. This document requires the assignment of 2 new PIM message types for the "PIM Packed Register" and "PIM Register Stop" in the PIM Message Types registry. 11. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Stig Venaas, Anish Peter, Zheng Zhang and Umesh Dudani for their helpful comments on the draft. 12. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, DOI 10.17487/RFC4610, August 2006, . [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March 2016, . [RFC8736] Venaas, S. and A. Retana, "PIM Message Type Space Extension and Reserved Bits", RFC 8736, DOI 10.17487/RFC8736, February 2020, . Authors' Addresses Vikas Ramesh Kamath VMware 3401 Hillview Ave Palo Alto CA 94304 USA Email: vkamath@vmware.com Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PIM Null-Register packing October 2020 Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram Cisco Systems, Inc. Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134 USA Email: ramaksun@cisco.com Raunak Banthia Apstra 333 Middlefield Rd STE 200 Menlo Park CA 94025 USA Email: rbanthia@apstra.com Ananya Gopal Cisco Systems, Inc. Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134 USA Email: ananygop@cisco.com Kamath, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 9]