wdiff rfc8378.original rfc8378.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) V. Moreno
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8378 Cisco Systems
Intended status:
Category: Experimental D. Farinacci
Expires: September 9, 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721 lispers.net
March 8,
April 2018

Signal-Free LISP Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09

Abstract

When multicast sources and receivers are active at LISP Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) sites, the core network is required to use
native multicast so packets can be delivered from sources to group
members. When multicast is not available to connect the multicast
sites together, a signal-free mechanism can be used to allow traffic
to flow between sites. The mechanism within here uses unicast
replication and encapsulation over the core network for the data-plane data
plane and uses the LISP mapping database system so encapsulators at
the source LISP multicast site can find decapsulators at the receiver
LISP multicast sites.

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].

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents valid approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 September 9, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.
5. General Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.
5.1. General Receiver-Site Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1.
5.1.1. Multicast Receiver Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2.
5.1.2. Receiver-Site Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3.
5.1.3. Consolidation of the Replication-List Replication List . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.
5.2. General Source-Site Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1.
5.2.1. Multicast Tree Building at the Source-Site Source Site . . . . . 10
4.2.2.
5.2.2. Multicast Destination Resolution . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.
5.3. General LISP Notification Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Source Specific
6. Source-Specific Multicast Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.
6.1. Source Directly Connected to Source-ITRs . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.
6.2. Source not Not Directly Connected to Source-ITRs . . . . . . 12
6. Multi-Homing
7. Multihoming Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.
7.1. Multiple ITRs at a Source-Site Source Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.
7.2. Multiple ETRs at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.
7.3. Multiple RLOCs for an ETR at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site . . . . . . 13
6.4.
7.4. Multicast RLOCs for an ETR at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site . . . . . . 14
7.
8. PIM Any Source Any-Source Multicast Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.
9. Signal-Free Multicast for Replication Engineering . . . . . . 15
9.
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Document Change Log
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09 . . . 21
A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-08 . . . 21
A.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 . . . 21
A.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 . . . 21
A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-05 . . . 21
A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 . . . 22
A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 . . . 22
A.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02 . . . 22
A.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01 . . . 22
A.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00 . . . 23
A.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 23
A.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03 23
A.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02 23
A.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01 23
A.15. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 21

1. Introduction

When multicast sources and receivers are active at LISP sites, and
the core network between the sites does not provide multicast
support, a signal-free mechanism can be used to create an overlay
that will allow multicast traffic to flow between sites and connect
the multicast trees at the different sites.

The signal-free mechanism proposed here does not extend PIM [RFC7761]
over the overlay as proposed in [RFC6831], nor does the mechanism
utilize direct signaling between the Receiver-ETRs and Sender-ITRs as
described in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]. [LISP-MULTI-SIGNALING]. The signal-free mechanism
proposed reduces the amount of signaling required between sites to a
minimum and is centered around the registration of
Receiver-sites receiver sites for
a particular multicast-group multicast group or multicast-channel multicast channel with the LISP Mapping System.
mapping system.

Registrations from the different receiver-sites receiver sites will be merged at the
Mapping System
mapping system to assemble a multicast-replication-list inclusive of
all RLOCs Routing Locators (RLOCs) that lead to receivers for a particular multicast-group
multicast group or
multicast-channel. multicast channel. The replication-list replication list for each
specific multicast- multicast entry is maintained as a database mapping entry in
the LISP Mapping
System. mapping system.

When the ITR Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) at the source-site source site receives
multicast traffic from sources at its site, the ITR can query the
mapping system by issuing Map-Request messages for the (S,G) source
and destination addresses in the packets received. The Mapping System mapping
system will return the RLOC
replication-list replication list to the ITR, which the
ITR will cache as per standard LISP procedure. Since the core is
assumed to not support multicast, the ITR will replicate the
multicast traffic for each RLOC on the
replication-list replication list and will
unicast encapsulate the traffic to each RLOC. The combined function
or replicating and encapsulating the traffic to the RLOCs in the replication-list
replication list is referred to as "rep-
encapsulation" "rep-encapsulation" in this
document.

The document describes the General Procedures general procedures (Section 4) 5) and information
encoding that are required at the Receiver-sites receiver sites and
Source-sites source sites to
achieve signal-free multicast interconnectivity. The
General Procedures general
procedures for Mapping System Notifications mapping system notifications to different sites are
also described. A section dedicated to the specific case of SSM Source-
Specific Multicast (SSM) trees discusses the implications to the General Procedures
general procedures for SSM multicast trees over different topological
scenarios. A section on ASM Any-Source Multicast (ASM) support is
included to identify the constraints that come along with supporting
it using LISP Signal-Free signal-free multicast.

There is a section dedicated to Replication Engineering. A Engineering, which is a
mechanism to reduce the impact of head-end replication. The mapping
system, via LISP Signal-Free signal-free mechanisms, can be used to build a layer
of
RTRs. Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers (RTRs).

2. Definition of Terms

LISP related

LISP-related terms, notably Map-Request, Map-Reply, Ingress Tunnel
Router (ITR), Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), Map-Server (MS) (MS), and Map-
Resolver
Map-Resolver (MR) are defined in the LISP specification [RFC6830].

Extensions to the definitions in [RFC6830] for their application to
multicast routing are documented in [RFC6831].

Terms defining interactions with the LISP Mapping System mapping system are defined
in [RFC6833].

The following terms are consistent with the definitions in [RFC6830]
and [RFC6831]. The terms are specific cases of the general terms and
are here defined here to facilitate the descriptions and discussions
within this particular document.

Source: Multicast source end-point. Host originating endpoint. The host that originates
multicast packets.

Receiver: Multicast group member end-point. Host endpoint. The host joins a
multicast group as a receiver of multicast packets sent to the group.

Receiver-site:

Receiver site: LISP site where multicast receivers are located.

Source-site:

Source site: LISP site where multicast sources are located.

RP-site:

RP site: LISP site where an ASM PIM Rendezvous Point (RP) [RFC7761]
is located. The RP-site RP site and the Source-site source site MAY be the same in some
situations.

Receiver-ETR: LISP decapsulating xTR the Tunnel Router (xTR) at the Receiver-site.
receiver site. This is a multicast ETR.

Source-ITR: LISP encapsulating xTR at the Source-site. source site. This is a
multicast ITR.

RP-xTR: LISP xTR at the RP-site. RP site. This is typically a multicast ITR.

Replication-list:

Replication list: Mapping-entry containing the list of RLOCs that
have registered Receivers receivers for a particular multicast-entry.

Multicast-entry: multicast entry.

Multicast entry: A tuple identifying a multicast tree. Multicast- Multicast
entries are in the form of (S-prefix, G-prefix).

Rep-encapsulation: The process of replicating and then encapsulating
traffic to multiple RLOCs.

Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that
implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section 8
of the main LISP specification [RFC6830]. A LISP RTR performs packet
re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first
removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a new
LISP header to an egress packet.

RTR Level: An RTR level is encoded in a Replication-List-Entry Replication List Entry (RLE)
LCAF
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Type detailed in [RFC8060].
Each entry in the replication list contains an address of an xTR and
a level value. Level values are used to create a replication
hierarchy so that ITRs at source LISP sites replicate to the lowest
(smaller value) level number RTRs in a
RLE entry. an RLE. And then RTRs at a
given level replicate to the next higher level of RTRs. The number
of RTRs at each level are engineered to control the fan-out or
replication factor factor, so a tradeoff trade-off between the width of the level
versus the number of levels can be selected.

ASM: Any-Source Multicast as defined in [RFC3569] and [RFC7761] where multicast
distribution trees are built with a Rendezvous Point. Point [RFC7761].

SSM: Source Specific Source-Specific Multicast as defined in [RFC3569] where
multicast distribution trees are built and rooted at the multicast
router(s) directly connected to the multicast source.

3. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

4. Reference Model

The reference model that will be used for the discussion of the
Signal-Free
signal-free multicast tree interconnection is illustrated in
Figure 1.

MS/MR
+---+
| |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Src-1 ----| R1|-----|ITR| | |ETR|------| R2|------ Rcv-2
+---+ +---+ | +---+ +---+
\ | /
Source-site-1 \ | / Receiver-site-2
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
Core
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
+---+ +---+
Src-3 --------------|ITR| |ETR|----------------- Rcv-4
+---+ +---+

Source-site-3 Receiver-site-4

Figure 1: LISP Multicast Generic Reference Model

Sites 1 and 3 are Source-sites. source sites.

Source-site-3 presents a Source source (Src-3) that is directly connected to
the Source-ITR Source-ITR.

Source-site-1 presents a Source source (Src-1) that is one hop or more away
from the Source-ITR Source-ITR.

Receiver-site-2 and 4 -4 are receiver sites with not-directly connected
and directly connected Receiver end-points respectively receiver endpoints, respectively.

R1 is a multicast router in Source-site-1.

R2 is a multicast router at the Receiver-site.

The receiver site.

Map-Servers and Resolvers Map-Resolvers are reachable in the RLOC space in the
Core,
core; only one is shown for illustration purposes, but these can be
many or even part of a Distributed Mapping System, distributed mapping system, such as a DDT
Tree.
Delegated Database Tree (DDT).

The procedures for interconnecting multicast Trees trees over an overlay
can be broken down into three functional areas:

o Receiver-site procedures

o Source-site procedures

o LISP notification procedures

The receiver site receiver-site procedures will be common for most tree types and
topologies.

The procedures at the source site can vary depending on the type of
trees being interconnected as well as based on the topological relation
between sources and source-site xTRs. For ASM trees, a special case
of the Source-site source site is the RP-site RP site for which a variation of the Source-site
source-site procedures MAY be necessary if ASM trees are to be
supported in future specifications of LISP Signal-Free signal-free multicast.

The LISP notification procedures between sites are normalized for the
different possible scenarios. Certain scenarios MAY benefit from a
simplified notification mechanism or no notification requirement at
all.

5. General Procedures

The interconnection of multicast trees across different LISP sites
involves the following procedures to build the necessary multicast
distribution trees across sites.

1. The presence of multicast Receiver end-points receiver endpoints is detected by the
Receiver-ETRs at the Receiver-sites. receiver sites.

2. Receiver-ETRs register their RLOCs as part of the replication- replication
list for the multicast-entry multicast entry the detected Receivers receivers subscribe to.

3. The Mapping-system mapping system merges all receiver-ETR Receiver-ETR or delivery-group
RLOCs to build a comprehensive replication-list replication list inclusive of all
Receiver-sites
receiver sites for each multicast-entry. multicast entry.

4. LISP Map-Notify messages MUST be sent to the Source-ITR informing
of any changes in the replication-list. replication list.

5. Multicast-tree Multicast tree building at the Source-site source site is initiated when the
Source-ITR receives the LISP Notification. notification.

Once the multicast distribution trees are built, the following
forwarding procedures may take place:

1. The Source source sends multicast packets to the multicast group
destination address.

2. Multicast traffic follows the multicast tree built at the Source- source
site and makes its way to the Source-ITRs.

3. The Source-ITR will issue a map-request Map-Request to resolve the
replication-list
replication list for the multicast-entry. multicast entry.

4. The Mapping System mapping system responds to the Source-ITR with a map-reply Map-Reply
containing the replication-list replication list for the multicast group
requested.

5. The Source-ITR caches the replication-list replication list received in the map-
reply
map-reply for the multicast-entry. multicast entry.

6. Multicast traffic is rep-encapsulated. That is, the packet is
replicated for each RLOC in the replication-list replication list and then
encapsulated to each one.

4.1.

5.1. General Receiver-Site Procedures

4.1.1.

5.1.1. Multicast Receiver Detection

When the Receiver-ETRs are directly connected to the Receivers (e.g. receivers (e.g.,
Receiver-site-4 in Figure 1), the Receiver-ETRs will receive IGMP
Reports
reports from the Receivers receivers indicating which group the Receivers receivers wish
to subscribe to. Based on these IGMP Reports, reports, the receiver-ETR Receiver-ETR is
made aware of the presence of Receivers receivers as well as which group they
are interested in.

When the Receiver-ETRs are several hops away from the Receivers (e.g. receivers
(e.g., Receiver-site-2 in Figure 1), the Receiver-ETRs will receive
PIM join
messages messages, which will allow the Receiver-ETR to know that
there are multicast Receivers receivers at the site and also to learn which
multicast group the Receivers receivers are for.

4.1.2.

5.1.2. Receiver-Site Registration

Once the Receiver-ETRs detect the presence of Receivers receivers at the
Receiver-site,
receiver site, the Receiver-ETRs MUST issue Map-Register messages to
include the Receiver-ETR RLOCs in the replication-list replication list for the
multicast-entry
multicast entry the Receivers receivers joined.

The Map-Register message MUST use the multicast-entry multicast entry (Source, Group)
tuple as its EID Endpoint ID (EID) record type with the Receiver-ETR
RLOCs conforming the locator set.

The EID in the Map-Register message MUST be encoded using the
Multicast Information Info LCAF type Type defined in [RFC8060].

The RLOC in the Map-Register message MUST be encoded using the
Replication List Entry (RLE) RLE
LCAF type Type defined in [RFC8060] with the Level Value fields for all
entries set to 128 (decimal).

The encoding described above MUST be used consistently for Map-
Register messages, entries in the Mapping System, Map-reply messages mapping system, Map-Reply messages,
as well as the map-cache at the Source-ITRs.

The Map-Register messages [RFC6830] sent by the receiver-ETRs Receiver-ETRs MUST
have the following bits set as here specified: specified here:

1. merge-request-bit merge-request bit set to 1. The Map-Register messages are sent
with "Merge Semantics". The Map-Server will receive
registrations from a multitude of Receiver-ETRs. The Map-Server
will merge the registrations for common EIDs and maintain a
consolidated replication-list replication list for each multicast-entry. multicast entry.

2. want-map-notify-bit want-map-notify bit (M) set to 0. This tells the Mapping System mapping system
that the receiver-ETR Receiver-ETR does not expect to receive Map-Notify
messages as it does not need to be notified of all changes to the
replication-list.
replication list.

3. proxy-reply-bit proxy-reply bit (P) set to 1. The merged replication-list replication list is
kept in the Map-Servers. By setting the proxy-reply bit, the
receiver-ETRs
Receiver-ETRs instruct the Mapping-system mapping system to proxy reply to map-
requests Map-
Requests issued for the multicast entries.

Map-Register messages for a particular multicast-entry multicast entry MAY be sent
for every receiver detected, even if previous receivers have been
detected for the particular multicast-entry. multicast entry. This allows the
replication-list
replication list to remain up to date.

Receiver-ETRs MUST be configured to know what Map-Servers Map-
Register messages are sent to. The configuration is likely to be
associated with an S-prefix that multiple (S,G) entries match to and
are more specific for. Therefore, the S-prefix determines the Map-
Server set in the least number of configuration statements.

4.1.3.

5.1.3. Consolidation of the Replication-List Replication List

The Map-Server will receive registrations from a multitude of
Receiver-ETRs. The Map-Server will merge the registrations for
common EIDs and consolidate a replication-list replication list for each multicast- multicast
entry.

When an ETR sends an RLE RLOC-record in a Map-Register and the RLE
entry
already exists in the Map-Server's RLE merged RLE-merged list, the Map-
Server Map-Server
will replace the single RLE entry with the information from the Map-Register Map-
Register RLOC-record. The Map-Server MUST NOT merge duplicate RLOCs
in the consolidated replication-list.

4.2. replication list.

5.2. General Source-Site Procedures

Source-ITRs MUST register the unicast EIDs of any Sources sources or
Rendezvous Points that may be present on the Source-site. source site. In other
words, it is assumed that the Sources sources and RPs are LISP EIDs.

The registration of the unicast EIDs for the Sources sources or Rendezvous
Points allows the Map-Server to know where to send Map-Notify
messages to. Therefore, the Source-ITR MUST register the unicast
S-prefix EID with the want-map-notify-bit want-map-notify bit set in order to receive
Map-Notify messages whenever there is a change in the replication- replication
list.

4.2.1.

5.2.1. Multicast Tree Building at the Source-Site Source Site

When the source site receives the Map-Notify messages from the
mapping system as described in Section 4.3, 5.3, it will initiate the
process of building a multicast distribution tree that will allow the
multicast packets from the Source source to reach the Source-ITR.

The Source-ITR MUST issue a PIM join for the multicast-entry multicast entry for
which it received the Map-Notify message. The join will be issued in
the direction of the source or in the direction of the RP for the SSM
and ASM cases cases, respectively.

4.2.2.

5.2.2. Multicast Destination Resolution

On reception of multicast packets, the source-ITR Source-ITR obtains the
replication-list
replication list for the (S,G) addresses in the packets.

In order to obtain the replication-list, replication list, the Source-ITR MUST issue a
Map-Request message in which the EID is the (S,G) multicast tuple tuple,
which is encoded using the Multicast Info LCAF type Type defined in
[RFC8060].

The Mapping System mapping system (most likely the Map-Server) will Map-reply Map-Reply with
the merged replication-list replication list maintained in the Mapping System. mapping system. The
Map-reply
Map-Reply message MUST follow the format defined in [RFC6830], [RFC6830]; its
EID is encoded using the Multicast Info LCAF type Type, and the
corresponding RLOC-records are encoded using the RLE LCAF type. Type. Both
LCAF types Types are defined in [RFC8060].

4.3.

5.3. General LISP Notification Procedures

The Map-Server will issue LISP Map-Notify messages to inform the
Source-site
source site of the presence of receivers for a particular multicast
group over the overlay.

Updated Map-Notify messages SHOULD be issued every time a new
registration is received from a Receiver-site. receiver site. This guarantees that
the source-sites source sites are aware of any potential changes in the multicast-
distribution-list membership.

The Map-Notify messages carry (S,G) multicast EIDs encoded using the
Multicast Info LCAF type Type defined in [RFC8060].

Map-Notify messages will be sent by the Map-Server to the RLOCs with
which the unicast S-prefix EID was registered. In the case when
sources are discovered dynamically [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility], [LISP-EID-MOBILITY], xTRs MUST
register sources explicitly with the want-map-notify-bit want-map-notify bit set. This
is so the ITR in the site the source has moved to can get the most
current replication list.

When both the Receiver-sites receiver sites and the Source-sites source sites register to the
same Map-Server, the Map-Server has all the necessary information to
send the Map-Notify messages to the Source-site. source site.

When the Map-Servers are distributed (when using LISP-DDT [RFC8111]),
the Receiver-sites receiver sites MAY register to one Map-Server while the Source- source
site registers to a different Map-Server. In this scenario, the Map-
Server for the receiver sites MUST resolve the unicast S-prefix EID
across a distributed mapping transport system, per standard LISP
lookup procedures procedures, and obtain the necessary information to send the
Map-Notify messages to the Source-site. source site. The Map-Notify messages are
sent with an authentication length of 0 as they would not be
authenticated.

When the Map-Servers are distributed, different Receiver-sites receiver sites MAY
register to different Map-Servers. However, this is not supported
with the currently defined mechanisms.

5. Source Specific

6. Source-Specific Multicast Trees

The interconnection of Source Specific Multicast (SSM) Trees SSM trees across sites will follow the General Receiver-site Procedures general
receiver-site procedures described in Section 4.1 5.1 on the Receiver-sites. receiver
sites.

The Source-site Procedures source-site procedures will vary depending on the topological
location of the Source source within the Source-site source site as described in
Section 5.1
Sections 6.1 and Section 5.2 6.2 .

5.1.

6.1. Source Directly Connected to Source-ITRs

When the Source source is directly connected to the source-ITR, Source-ITR, it is not
necessary to trigger signaling to build a local multicast tree at the
Source-site.
source site. Therefore Map-Notify messages are not required to
initiate building of the multicast tree at the Source-site. source site.

Map-Notify messages are still required to ensure that any changes to
the replication-list replication list are communicated to the Source-site source site so that the
map-cache at the Source-ITRs is kept updated.

5.2.

6.2. Source not Not Directly Connected to Source-ITRs

The General general LISP Notification Procedures notification procedures described in Section 4.3 5.3
MUST be followed when the Source source is not directly connected to the
source-ITR.
Source-ITR. On reception of Map-Notify messages, local multicast
signaling MUST be initiated at the Source-site source site per the General Source
Site Procedures for Multicast Tree general
source-site procedures for multicast tree building described in
Section 4.2.1. 5.2.1.

In the SSM case, the IP address of the Source source is known known, and it is
also registered with the LISP mapping system. Thus, the mapping
system MAY resolve the mapping for the Source source address in order to
send Map-
Notify Map-Notify messages to the correct source-ITR.

6. Multi-Homing Source-ITR.

7. Multihoming Considerations

6.1.

7.1. Multiple ITRs at a Source-Site Source Site

When multiple ITRs exist at a source multicast site, care MUST be
taken that more than one ITR does not head-end replicate packets else packets;
otherwise, receiver multicast sites will receive duplicate packets.
The following procedures will be used for each topology scenarios: scenario:

o When more than one ITR is directly connected to the source host,
either the PIM DR or the IGMP querier (when PIM is not enabled on
the ITRs) is responsible for packet replication. All other ITRs
silently drop the packet. In the IGMP querier case, one or more
ITRs on the source LAN MUST be IGMP querier candidates.
Therefore, it is required that they are be configured as such.

o When more than one ITR is multiple hops away from the source host
and one of the ITRs is the PIM Rendezvous Point, then the PIM RP
is responsible for packet replication.

o When more than one ITR is multiple hops away from the source host
and the PIM Rendezvous Point is not one of the ITRs, then one of
the ITRs MUST join to the RP. When a Map-Notify is received from
the Map-Server by an ITR, only the highest RLOC addressed ITR will
join toward the PIM RP or toward the source.

6.2.

7.2. Multiple ETRs at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site

When multiple ETRs exist in a receiver multicast site, site and each
create one
creates a multicast join state, they each Map-Register their Map-Registers its RLOC
addresses address
to the mapping system. In this scenario, the replication happens on
the overlay causing multiple ETR entry points to replicate to all
receivers versus instead of a single ETR entry point replicating to all
receivers. If an ETR does not create join state, because it has not
received PIM joins or IGMP reports, it will not Map-Register its RLOC
addresses to the mapping system. The same procedures in Section 4.1 5.1
are followed.

When multiple ETRs exist on the same LAN as a receiver host, then the
PIM DR, when DR (when PIM is enabled, enabled) or the IGMP querier is responsible for
sending a Map-Register for its RLOC. In the IGMP case, one or more
ETRs on a LAN MUST be IGMP querier candidates. Therefore, it is
required that they are configured as such.

6.3.

7.3. Multiple RLOCs for an ETR at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site

It MAY be desirable to have multiple underlay paths to an ETR for
multicast packet delivery. This can be done by having multiple RLOCs
assigned to an ETR and having the ETR send Map-Registers for all its
RLOCs. By doing this, an ITR can choose a specific path based on
underlay performance and/or RLOC reachability.

It is recommended that an ETR sends send a Map-Register with a single
RLOC-record RLOC-
record that uses the ELP Explicit Locator Path (ELP) LCAF type Type [RFC8060]
that is nested inside the RLE entry LCAF. For example example, say ETR1 has
assigned RLOC1 and RLOC2 for a LISP receiver site. And Also, there is
ETR2 in another LISP receiver site, site that has RLOC3. The two receiver
sites have the same (S,G) being joined. Here is how the RLOC-record
is encoded on each ETR:

ETR1: EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE[ ELP{ (RLOC1,s,p), (RLOC2,s,p) } ]

ETR2: EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE[ RLOC3 ]

And here is how the entry is merged and stored on the Map-Server
since the Map-Registers have an RLE encoded RLE-encoded RLOC-record:

MS: EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE[ RLOC3, ELP{ (RLOC1,s,p), (RLOC2,s,p) } ]
When the ITR receives a packet from a multicast source S for group G,
it uses the merged RLOC-record, RLOC-record returned from the Map-Server. The ITR
replicates the packet to (RLOC3 and RLOC1) or (RLOC3 and RLOC2).
Since it is required for the s-bit to be set for RLOC1, the ITR MUST
replicate to RLOC1 if it is reachable. When the required p-bit is
also set, the RLOC-reachability mechanisms from [RFC6830] are
followed. If the ITR determines that RLOC1 is unreachable, it uses
RLOC2, as long as RLOC2 is reachable.

6.4.

7.4. Multicast RLOCs for an ETR at a Receiver-Site Receiver Site

This specification is focused on underlays without multicast support,
but it does not preclude the use of multicast RLOCs in RLE entries. RLEs. ETRs
MAY register multicast EID entries using multicast RLOCs. In such cases
cases, the ETRs will get be joined to underlay multicast distribution
trees by using IGMP as a multicast host using mechanisms in [RFC2236]
and [RFC3376].

8. PIM Any Source Any-Source Multicast Trees

LISP signal-free multicast can support ASM Trees trees in limited but
acceptable topologies. It is suggested suggested, for the simplification of
building ASM trees across the LISP overlay overlay, to have PIM-ASM run
independently in each LISP site. What this means, means is that a PIM
Rendezvous Point (RP) RP is
configured in each LISP site so PIM Register procedures and (*,G)
state maintenance is contained within the LISP site.

The following procedure will be used to support ASM in each LISP
site:

1. In a Receiver-site, receiver site, the RP is colocated co-located with the ETR. RPs for
different groups can be spread across each ETR, but is not
required.

2. When (*,G) state is created in an ETR, the procedures in
Section 4.1.2 5.1.2 are followed. In addition, the ETR registers
(S-prefix,G), where S-prefix is 0/0 (the respective unicast
default route for the address-family) to the mapping system.

3. In a Source-site, source site, the RP is colocated co-located with the ITR. RPs for
different groups can be spread across each ITR, but is not
required.

4. When a multicast source sends a packet, a PIM Register message is
delivered to the ITR ITR, and the procedures in Section 4.2 5.2 are
followed.

5. When the ITR sends a Map-Request for (S,G) and no Receiver-site receiver site
has registered for (S,G), the mapping system will return the
(0/0,G) entry to the ITR so it has a replication list of all the
ETRs that have received (*,G) state.

6. The ITR stores the replication-list replication list in its map-cache for (S,G).
It replicates packets to all ETRs in the list.

7. ETRs decapsulate packets and forward based on (*,G) state in
their site.

8. When last-hop PIM routers join the newly discovered (S,G), the
ETR will store the state and follow the procedures in
Section 4.1.2.

8. 5.1.2.

9. Signal-Free Multicast for Replication Engineering

The mechanisms in this draft specification can be applied to the LISP Replication-
Engineering [I-D.coras-lisp-re] "LISP
Replication Engineering" [LISP-RE] design. Rather than having have the
layered LISP-RE RTR hierarchy use signaling mechanisms, the RTRs can
register their availability for multicast tree replication via the
mapping database system.

As stated in [I-D.coras-lisp-re], [LISP-RE], the RTR layered RTR-layered hierarchy is used to avoid
head-end replication in replicating nodes closest to a multicast
source. Rather than have multicast ITRs replicate to each ETR in an
RLE entry of a an (S,G) mapping database entry, it could replicate to one or
more layer-0 layer 0 RTRs in the LISP-RE hierarchy.

This draft documents document specifies how the RTR hierarchy is determined but not what
are
the optimal layers of RTRs to use. be used. Methods for determining
optimal paths or RTR topological closeness are out of scope for his this
document.

There are two formats an (S,G) mapping database entry could have.
One format is a 'complete-format' 'complete-format', and the other is a 'filtered-
format'. A 'complete-format' entails an (S,G) entry having multiple
RLOC records which
RLOC-records that contain both ETRs that have registered as well as
the RTRs at the first level of the LISP-RE hierarchy for the ITR to
replicate to. When using 'complete-format', the ITR has the ability
to select if it replicates to RTRs or to the registered ETRs at the
receiver sites. A 'filtered-format' (S,G) entry is one where the
Map-Server returns the RLOC-records that it decides the ITR SHOULD
use. So replication policy is shifted from the ITRs to the mapping
system. The Map-Servers can also decide for a given ITR, ITR if it uses a
different set of replication targets per (S,G) entry for which the
ITR is replicating for.

The procedure for the LISP-RE RTRs to make themselves available for
replication can occur before or after any receivers join an (S,G)
entry or any sources send for a particular (S,G) entry. Therefore,
newly configured RTR state will be used to create new (S,G) state and
will be inherited into existing (S,G) state. A set of RTRs can
register themselves to the mapping system or a third-party third party can do so
on their behalf. When RTR registration occurs, it is done with an
(S-prefix, G-prefix) entry so it can advertise its replication
services for a
wide-range wide range of source/group combinations.

When a Map-Server receives (S,G) registrations from ETRs and
(S-prefix, G-prefix) registrations from RTRs, it has the option of
merging the RTR RLOC-records for each (S,G) that is more-specific more specific for
the (S-prefix, G-prefix) entry or keep keeping them separate. When
merging, a Map-Server is ready to return a 'complete-format' Map-Reply. Map-
Reply. When keeping the entries separate, the Map-Server can decide
what to include in a Map-Reply when a Map-Request is received. It
can include a combination of RLOC-records from each entry or decide
to use one or the other depending on policy configured.

+---+ +----+
Src-1 --------------|ITR| |ETR1|---------------- Rcv-1
+---+ +----+
\ /
Source-site-1 \ / Receiver-site-1
\ /
\ /
+----+ \ / +----+
|RTR1| \ / |RTR2| Level-0
+----+ \ / +----+
\ <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> /
\ < > /
< Core-Network Core Network >
< >
<vvvvvvvvvvvvvv>
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
+----+ / / \ \ +----+
|RTR3| / \ |RTR4| Level-1
+----+ / \ +----+
/ \
/ \
+----+ +----+
Rcv-2 --------------|ETR2| |ETR3|---------------- Rcv-3
+----+ +----+

Receiver-site-2 Receiver-site-3

Figure 2: LISP-RE Reference Model

Here is a specific example, illustrated in Figure 2, of (S,G) and
(S-prefix, G-prefix) mapping database entries when a source S is
behind an ITR ITR, and there are receiver sites joined to (S,G) via ETR1,
ETR2, and ETR3. And there exists a LISP-RE hierarchy of RTR1 and
RTR2 at level-0 and RTR3 and RTR4 at level-1:

EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE: (ETR1, ETR2, ETR3), p1
EID-record: (S-prefix, G-prefix)
RLOC-record: RLE: (RTR1(L0), RTR2(L0), RTR3(L1), RTR4(L1)), p1

The above entries are in the form of how in which they were registered and
are stored in a Map-Server. When a Map-Server uses 'complete-format', a 'complete-
format', the Map-Reply it originates has the mapping record encoded
as:

EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE: (RTR1(L0), RTR3(L1)), p1
RLOC-record: RLE: (ETR1, ETR2, ETR3), p1

The above Map-Reply allows the ITR to decide if it replicates to the
ETRs or if it SHOULD replicate only to level-0 RTR1. This decision
is left to the ITR since both RLOC-records have priority 1. If the
Map-Server wanted to force the ITR to replicate to RTR1, it would set
the ETRs RLOC-record to a priority greater than 1.

When a Map_server uses "filtered-format', a the Map-Reply it originates
has the mapping record encoded as:

EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RLE: (RTR1(L0), RTR3(L1)), p1

An (S,G) entry can contain alternate RTRs. So rather than
replicating to multiple RTRs, one of a RTR set MAY be used based on the
RTR reachability status. An ITR can test reachability status to any layer-0
layer 0 RTR using RLOC-probing RLOC-probing, so it can choose one RTR from a set
to replicate to. When this is done done, the RTRs are encoded in
different RLOC-records versus instead of together in one RLE RLOC-record.
This moves the replication load off the ITRs at the source site to
the RTRs inside the network infrastructure. This mechanism can also
be used by level-n RTRs to level-n+1 RTRs.

The following mapping would be encoded in a Map-Reply sent by a Map-
Server and stored in the ITR. The ITR would use RTR1 until it went
unreachable and then switch to use RTR2:

EID-record: (S,G)
RLOC-record: RTR1, p1
RLOC-record: RTR2, p2

10. Security Considerations

[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]

[LISP-SEC] defines a set of security mechanisms that provide origin
authentication, integrity integrity, and anti-replay protection to LISP's
EID-to-RLOC EID-
to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via the mapping lookup process. LISP-
SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID-prefix claims
in Map-Reply messages.

Additional security mechanisms to protect the LISP Map-Register
messages are defined in [RFC6833].

The security of the Mapping System Infrastructure mapping system infrastructure depends on the
particular mapping database used. The [RFC8111] specification, as As an example, [RFC8111] defines a public-key based
public-key-based mechanism that provides origin authentication and
integrity protection to the LISP DDT protocol.

Map-Replies received by the source-ITR Source-ITR can be signed (by the Map-
Server)
Server), so the ITR knows the replication-list replication list is from a legit legitimate
source.

Data-plane encryption can be used when doing unicast rep-
encapsulation as described in [RFC8061].

10.

11. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA implications

11. Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Greg Shepherd, Joel Halpern and Sharon
Barkai for their insightful contribution to shaping the ideas in this
document. A special thanks to Luigi Iannone, LISP WG co-chair, for
shepherding this working group document. Thanks also goes to Jimmy
Kyriannis, Paul Vinciguerra, Florin Coras, and Yan Filyurin for
testing an implementation of this draft. actions.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.

[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

[RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, DOI 10.17487/RFC3569, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3569>.

[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

12.2. Informative References

[I-D.coras-lisp-re]
Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino,

[LISP-EID-MOBILITY]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", Work in progress), Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-
eid-mobility-01, November 2015.

[I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling] 2017.

[LISP-MULTI-SIGNALING]
Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane
Multicast Signaling", draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-06
(work Work in progress), Progress, draft-farinacci-
lisp-mr-signaling-06, February 2015.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V.,

[LISP-RE] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01
(work Replication
Engineering", Work in progress), Progress, draft-coras-lisp-re-08,
November 2017.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 2015.

[LISP-SEC]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
(work Work in progress), Progress,
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14, October 2017.

[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.

Appendix A. Document Change Log

[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09

o Posted March 2018.

o Fixed idnits in draft.

A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-08

o Posted February 2018.

o Fixed last call editorial comments.

A.3. Changes

Acknowledgements

The authors want to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07

o Posted November 2017.

o Changes after shepherd review thank Greg Shepherd, Joel Halpern, and RFC1918 terminology compliant.

A.4. Changes Sharon
Barkai for their insightful contribution to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06

o Posted July 2017.

o Stig made a comment about referencing RFC6831 when an RLOC is a
multicast address. It opens up a lot of assumptions on what parts
of RFC6831 is performed and which parts should not be performed.
In the case of signal-free-multicast, join shaping the underlay trees as a
multicast host by using IGMP.

A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-05

o Posted July 2017.

o Make it clear that when a RLE is sent by an ETR and it is already ideas in the merged RLE list on the Map-Server, that the Map-Server
replaces the RLE entry (versus adding a duplicate RLE entry to the
list).

o Make it clear that an RLOC can be a unicast or multicast address.
Then make a reference to RFC6831 about mechanisms to support
multicast RLOCs.

o Fix some typos.

A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04

o Posted May 2017.

o Make it clear that recieiver-ETRs need configuraiton information
for what Map-Servers (S,G) entries are registered to.

o Make it clear this document indicates what RTR layered hierarchy
to use and not if its the best hierarchy to use.

A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03

o Posted April 2017.

o Add "Multi-Homing Considerations" section
document. A special thanks to describe the case
where a source Luigi Iannone, LISP site has multiple ITRs and the multicast
distribution tree at the source site branches to more than one
ITR. And at receiver sites where there are multiple ETRs and
multiple RLOCs per ETR.

A.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02

o Posted October 2016.

o Updated document expiration timer.

A.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01

o Posted April 2016.

o Add text to define RTRs and indicate how RTR level number is used WG co-chair, for LISP-RE.

o Draw figure 2 that shows a LISP-RE topology.

o Indicate that PIM-ASM or (*,G) trees can be supported in LISP
Signal-Free Multicast.

A.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00

o Posted late December 2015.

o Converted draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 into LISP
shepherding this working group draft.

A.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04

o Posted early December 2015.

o Update references and document timer.

A.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-03

o Posted June 2015.

o Update references and document timer.

A.13. Changes document. Thanks also goes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-02

o Posted December 2014.

o Added section about how LISP-RE can use the mechanisms from
signal-free-multicast so we can avoid head-end replication Jimmy
Kyriannis, Paul Vinciguerra, Florin Coras, and
avoid signalling across a layered RE topology.

A.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01

o Posted June 2014.

o Changes based on Yan Filyurin for
testing an implementation experience of this draft.

A.15. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00

o Posted initial draft February 2014. document.

Authors' Addresses

Victor Moreno
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
United States of America

Email: vimoreno@cisco.com

Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA 95120
USA
United States of America

Email: farinacci@gmail.com