





Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Request for Comments: 4610                                        Y. Cai
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
                                                             August 2006


         Anycast-RP Using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This specification allows Anycast-RP (Rendezvous Point) to be used
   inside a domain that runs Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) only.
   Other multicast protocols (such as Multicast Source Discovery
   Protocol (MSDP), which has been used traditionally to solve this
   problem) are not required to support Anycast-RP.

1.  Introduction

   Anycast-RP as described in [I1] is a mechanism that ISP-based
   backbones have used to get fast convergence when a PIM Rendezvous
   Point (RP) router fails.  To allow receivers and sources to
   Rendezvous to the closest RP, the packets from a source need to get
   to all RPs to find joined receivers.

   This notion of receivers finding sources is the fundamental problem
   of source discovery that MSDP was intended to solve.  However, if one
   would like to retain the Anycast-RP benefits from [I1] with less
   protocol machinery, removing MSDP from the solution space is an
   option.

   This memo extends the Register mechanism in PIM so Anycast-RP
   functionality can be retained without using MSDP.







Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


1.1.  Terminology

   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 [N2].

2.  Overview

   o A unicast IP address is chosen to use as the RP address.  This
     address is statically configured, or distributed using a dynamic
     protocol, to all PIM routers throughout the domain.

   o A set of routers in the domain is chosen to act as RPs for this RP
     address.  These routers are called the Anycast-RP set.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set is configured with a loopback
     interface using the RP address.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set also needs a separate IP address,
     to be used for communication between the RPs.

   o The RP address, or a prefix that covers the RP address, is injected
     into the unicast routing system inside of the domain.

   o Each router in the Anycast-RP set is configured with the addresses
     of all other routers in the Anycast-RP set.  This must be
     consistently configured in all RPs in the set.

3.  Mechanism

   The following diagram illustrates a domain using 3 RPs where
   receivers are joining to the closest RP according to where unicast
   routing metrics take them and 2 sources sending packets to their
   respective RPs.

   The rules described in this section do not override the rules in
   [N1].  They are intended to blend with the rules in [N1].  If there
   is any question on the interpretation, precedent is given to [N1].


         S1-----RP1              RP2                RP3------S3
                / \               |
               /   \              |
              R1   R1'            R2







Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


   Assume the above scenario is completely connected where R1, R1', and
   R2 are receivers for a group, and S1 and S3 send to that group.
   Assume RP1, RP2, and RP3 are all assigned the same IP address, which
   is used as the Anycast-RP address (let's say the IP address is RPA).

   Note, the address used for the RP address in the domain (the
   Anycast-RP address) needs to be different than the addresses used by
   the Anycast-RP routers to communicate with each other.

   The following procedure is used when S1 starts sourcing traffic:

   o S1 sends a multicast packet.

   o The designated router (DR) directly attached to S1 will form a PIM
     Register message to send to the Anycast-RP address (RPA).  The
     unicast routing system will deliver the PIM Register message to the
     nearest RP, in this case RP1.

   o RP1 will receive the PIM Register message, decapsulate it, and send
     the packet down the shared-tree to get the packet to receivers R1
     and R1'.

   o RP1 is configured with RP2 and RP3's IP address.  Since the
     Register message did not come from one of the RPs in the anycast-RP
     set, RP1 assumes the packet came from a DR.  If the Register is not
     addressed to the Anycast-RP address, an error has occurred and it
     should be rate-limited logged.

   o RP1 will then send a copy of the Register message from S1's DR to
     both RP2 and RP3.  RP1 will use its own IP address as the source
     address for the PIM Register message.

   o RP1 MAY join back to the source-tree by triggering a (S1,G) Join
     message toward S1.  However, RP1 MUST create (S1,G) state.

   o RP1 sends a Register-Stop back to the DR.  If, for some reason, the
     Register messages to RP2 and RP3 are lost, then when the Register
     suppression timer expires in the DR, it will resend Registers to
     allow another chance for all RPs in the Anycast-RP set to obtain
     the (S,G) state.

   o RP2 receives the Register message from RP1, decapsulates it, and
     also sends the packet down the shared-tree to get the packet to
     receiver R2.

   o RP2 sends a Register-Stop back to RP1.  RP2 MAY wait to send the
     Register-Stop if it decides to join the source-tree.  RP2 should
     wait until it has received data from the source on the source-tree



Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


     before sending the Register-Stop.  If RP2 decides to wait, the
     Register-Stop will be sent when the next Register is received.  If
     RP2 decides not to wait, the Register-Stop is sent now.

   o RP2 MAY join back to the source-tree by triggering a (S1,G) Join
     message toward S1.  However, RP2 MUST create (S1,G) state.

   o RP3 receives the Register message from RP1, decapsulates it, but
     since there are no receivers joined for the group, it can discard
     the packet.

   o RP3 sends a Register-Stop back to RP1.

   o RP3 creates (S1,G) state so when a receiver joins after S1 starts
     sending, RP3 can join quickly to the source-tree for S1.

   o RP1 processes the Register-Stop from each of RP2 and RP3.  There is
     no specific action taken when processing Register-Stop messages.

   The procedure for S3 sending follows the same as above but it is RP3
   that sends a copy of the Register originated by S3's DR to RP1 and
   RP2.  Therefore, this example shows how sources anywhere in the
   domain, associated with different RPs, can reach all receivers, also
   associated with different RPs, in the same domain.

4.  Observations and Guidelines about This Proposal

   o An RP will send a copy of a Register only if the Register is
     received from an IP address not in the Anycast-RP list (i.e., the
     Register came from a DR and not another RP).  An implementation
     MUST safeguard against inconsistently configured Anycast-RP sets in
     each RP by copying the Time to Live (TTL) from a Register message
     to the Register messages it copies and sends to other RPs.

   o Each DR that PIM registers for a source will send the message to
     the Anycast-RP address (which results in the packet getting to the
     closest physical RP).  Therefore, there are no changes to the DR
     logic.

   o Packets flow to all receivers no matter what RP they have joined
     to.

   o The source gets Registered to a single RP by the DR.  It's the
     responsibility of the RP that receives the PIM Register messages
     from the DR (the closest RP to the DR based on routing metrics) to
     get the packet to all other RPs in the Anycast-RP set.





Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


   o Logic is changed only in the RPs.  The logic change is for sending
     copies of Register messages.  Register-Stop processing is
     unchanged.  However, an implementation MAY suppress sending
     Register-Stop messages in response to a Register received from an
     RP.

   o The rate-limiting of Register and Register-Stop messages are done
     end-to-end.  That is from DR -> RP1 -> {RP2 and RP3}.  There is no
     need for specific rate-limiting logic between the RPs.

   o When topology changes occur, the existing source-tree adjusts as it
     does today according to [N1].  The existing shared-trees, as well,
     adjust as they do today according to [N1].

   o Physical RP changes are as fast as unicast route convergence,
     retaining the benefit of [I1].

   o An RP that doesn't support this specification can be mixed with RPs
     that do support this specification.  However, the non-supporter RP
     should not have sources registering to it, but may have receivers
     joined to it.

   o If Null Registers are sent (Registers with an IP header and no IP
     payload), they MUST be replicated to all of the RPs in the
     Anycast-RP set so that source state remains alive for active
     sources.

   o The number of RPs in the Anycast-RP set should remain small so the
     amount of non-native replication is kept to a minimum.

   o Since the RP, who receives a Register from the DR, will send copies
     of the Register to the other RPs at the same time it sends a
     Register-Stop to the DR, there could be packet loss and lost state
     in the other RPs until the time the DR sends Register messages
     again.

5.  Interaction with MSDP Running in an Anycast-PIM Router

   The objective of this Anycast-PIM proposal is to remove the
   dependence on using MSDP.  This can be achieved by removing MSDP
   peering between the Anycast-RPs.  However, to advertise internal
   sources to routers outside of a PIM routing domain and to learn
   external sources from other routing domains, MSDP may still be
   required.







Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


5.1.  Anycast-PIM Stub Domain Functionality

   In this capacity, when there are internal sources that need to be
   advertised externally, an Anycast-RP that receives a Register
   message, either from a DR or an Anycast-RP, should process it as
   described in this specification as well as how to process a Register
   message as described in [N1].  That means a Source-Active (SA) for
   the same internal source could be originated by multiple Anycast-RPs
   doing the MSDP peering.  There is nothing inherently wrong with this
   other than that the source is being advertised into the MSDP
   infrastructure from multiple places from the source domain.  However,
   if this is not desirable, configuration of one or more (rather than
   all) Anycast-RP MSDP routers would allow only those routers to
   originate SAs for the internal source.  And in some situations, there
   is a good possibility not all Anycast-RPs in the set will have MSDP
   peering sessions so this issue can be mitigated to a certain extent.

   From an Anycast-RP perspective, a source should be considered
   internal to a domain when it is discovered by an Anycast-RP through a
   received Register message, regardless of whether the Register message
   was sent by a DR, another Anycast-RP member, or the router itself.

   For learning sources external to a domain, the MSDP SA messages could
   arrive at multiple MSDP-peering Anycast-RPs.  The rules for
   processing an SA, according to [I1], should be followed.  That is, if
   G is joined in the domain, an (S,G) join is sent towards the source.
   And if data accompanies the SA, each Anycast-PIM RP doing MSDP
   peering will forward the data down each of its respective shared-
   trees.

   The above assumes each Anycast-RP has external MSDP peering
   connections.  If this is not the case, the Anycast-PIM routers with
   the MSDP peering connections would follow the same procedure as if a
   Data-Register or Null-Register was received from either a DR or
   another Anycast-RP.  That is, they would send Registers to the other
   members of the Anycast-RP set.

   If there is a mix of Anycast-RPs that do and do not have external
   MSDP peering connections, then the ones that do must be configured
   with the set that do not.  So Register messages are sent only to the
   members of the Anycast-RP set that do not have external MSDP peering
   connections.

   The amount of Register traffic generated by this MSDP-peering RP
   would be equal to the number of active sources external to the
   domain.  The Source-Active state would have to be conveyed to all
   other RPs in the Anycast-RP set since the MSDP-peering RP would not
   know about the group membership associated with the other RPs.  To



Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


   avoid this periodic control traffic, it is recommended that all
   Anycast-RPs be configured with external MSDP peering sessions so no
   RP in the Anycast-RP set will have to originate Register messages on
   behalf of external sources.

5.2.  Anycast-PIM Transit Domain Functionality

   Within a routing domain, it is recommended that an Anycast-RP set
   defined in this specification should not be mixed with MSDP peering
   among the members.  In some cases, the source discovery will work but
   it may not be obvious to the implementations which sources are local
   to the domain and which are not.  This may affect external MSDP
   advertisement of internal sources.

   Having said that, this document makes no attempt to connect MSDP
   peering domains together by using Anycast-PIM inside a transit
   domain.

6.  Security Consideration

   This section describes the security consideration for Register and
   Register-Stop messages between Anycast-RPs.  For PIM messages between
   DR and RP, please see [N1].

6.1.  Attack Based On Forged Messages

   An attacker may forge a Register message using one of the addresses
   in the Anycast-RP list in order to achieve one or more of the
   following effects:

   1.  Overwhelm the target RP in a denial-of-service (DoS) attack
   2.  Inject unauthorized data to receivers served by the RP
   3.  Inject unauthorized data and create bogus SA entries in other
       PIM domains if the target RP has external MSDP peerings

   An attacker may also forge a Register-Stop message using one of the
   addresses in the Anycast-RP list.  However, besides denial-of-
   service, the effect of such an attack is limited because an RP
   usually ignores Register-Stop messages.

6.2.  Protect Register and Register-Stop Messages

   The DoS attack using forged Register or Register-Stop messages cannot
   be prevented.  But the RP can still be protected.  For example, the
   RP can rate-limit incoming messages.  It can also choose to refuse to
   process any Register-Stop messages.  The actual protection mechanism
   is implementation specific.




Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


   The distribution of unauthorized data and bogus Register messages can
   be prevented using the method described in section 6.3.2 of [N1].
   When RP1 sends a copy of a register to RP2, RP1 acts as [N1]
   describes the DR and RP2 acts as [N1] describes the RP.

   As described in [N1], an RP can be configured using a unique SA and
   Security Parameter Index (SPI) for traffic (Registers or Register-
   Stops) to each member of Anycast-RPs in the list, but this results in
   a key management problem; therefore, it may be preferable in PIM
   domains where all Rendezvous Points are under a single administrative
   control to use the same authentication algorithm parameters
   (including the key) for all Registered packets in a domain.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors prototyped this document in the cisco IOS and Procket
   implementations, respectively.

   The authors would like to thank John Zwiebel for doing
   interoperability testing of the two prototype implementations.

   The authors would like to thank Thomas Morin from France Telecom for
   having an extensive discussion on Multicast the Registers to an SSM-
   based full mesh among the Anycast-RP set.  This idea may come in a
   subsequent document.

   And finally, the authors would like to thank the following for their
   comments on earlier drafts:

      Greg Shepherd (Procket Networks (now Cisco Systems))
      Lenny Giuliano (Juniper Networks)
      Prashant Jhingran (Huawei Technologies)
      Pekka Savola (CSC/FUNET)
      Bill Fenner (AT&T)
      James Lingard (Data Connection)
      Amit Shukla (Juniper Networks)
      Tom Pusateri (Juniper Networks)














Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [N1] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
        "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
        Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [N2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I1] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
        Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
        Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)",
        RFC 3446, January 2003.


































Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


Appendix A: Possible Configuration Language

   A possible set of commands to be used could be:

      ip pim anycast-rp <anycast-rp-addr> <rp-addr>

   Where:

      <anycast-rp-addr> describes the Anycast-RP set for the RP that is
      assigned to the group range.  This IP address is the address that
      first-hop and last-hop PIM routers use to register and join to.

      <rp-addr> describes the IP address where Register messages copies
      are sent to.  This IP address is any address assigned to the RP
      router not including the <anycast-rp-addr>.

   Example:

      From the illustration above, the configuration commands would be:

      ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP1
      ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP2
      ip pim anycast-rp RPA RP3

   Comment:

      It may be useful to include the local router IP address in the
      command set so the above lines can be cut-and-pasted or scripted
      into all the RPs in the Anycast-RP set.

      But the implementation would have to be aware of its own address
      and not inadvertently send a Register to itself.



















Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: dino@cisco.com


   Yiqun Cai
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: ycai@cisco.com







































Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 4610                  Anycast-RP using PIM               August 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Farinacci & Cai             Standards Track                    [Page 12]

