| < draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-19.txt | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-20.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| skipping to change at page 1, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 15 ¶ | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track M. Mishra | Intended status: Standards Track M. Mishra | |||
| Expires: September 22, 2022 Cisco Systems | Expires: September 22, 2022 Cisco Systems | |||
| K. Patel | K. Patel | |||
| Arrcus | Arrcus | |||
| J. Drake | J. Drake | |||
| W. Lin | W. Lin | |||
| Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||
| March 21, 2022 | March 21, 2022 | |||
| IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN | IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN | |||
| draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-19 | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-20 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes how to support efficiently endpoints running | This document describes how to support efficiently endpoints running | |||
| IGMP(Internet Group Management Protocol) or MLD (Multicast Listener | IGMP(Internet Group Management Protocol) or MLD (Multicast Listener | |||
| Discovery) for the multicast services over an EVPN network by | Discovery) for the multicast services over an EVPN network by | |||
| incorporating IGMP/MLD proxy procedures on EVPN (Ethernet VPN) PEs. | incorporating IGMP/MLD proxy procedures on EVPN (Ethernet VPN) PEs. | |||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 21 ¶ | |||
| o The include/exclude (IE) bit helps in creating filters for a given | o The include/exclude (IE) bit helps in creating filters for a given | |||
| multicast route. | multicast route. | |||
| o If route is used for IPv6 (MLD) then bit 7 indicates support for | o If route is used for IPv6 (MLD) then bit 7 indicates support for | |||
| MLD version 1. The second least significant bit, bit 6 indicates | MLD version 1. The second least significant bit, bit 6 indicates | |||
| support for MLD version 2. Since there is no MLD version 3, in | support for MLD version 2. Since there is no MLD version 3, in | |||
| case of IPv6 route third least significant bit MUST be 0. In case | case of IPv6 route third least significant bit MUST be 0. In case | |||
| of IPv6 routes, the fourth least significant bit MUST be ignored | of IPv6 routes, the fourth least significant bit MUST be ignored | |||
| if bit 6 is not set. | if bit 6 is not set. | |||
| o Reserved bits MUST be set to 0 by sender. And receiver SHOULD | o Reserved bits MUST be set to 0 by sender. And receiver MUST | |||
| ignore the Reserved bits. | ignore the Reserved bits. | |||
| 9.1.1. Constructing the Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag route | 9.1.1. Constructing the Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag route | |||
| This section describes the procedures used to construct the Selective | This section describes the procedures used to construct the Selective | |||
| Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) route. | Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) route. | |||
| The Route Distinguisher (RD) SHOULD be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364]. The | The Route Distinguisher (RD) SHOULD be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364]. The | |||
| value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the | value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the | |||
| loopback address) followed by a number unique to the PE. | loopback address) followed by a number unique to the PE. | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 21, line 5 ¶ | |||
| Consider the EVPN network of Figure-2, where there is an EVPN | Consider the EVPN network of Figure-2, where there is an EVPN | |||
| instance configured across the PEs. Let's consider that PE2 is | instance configured across the PEs. Let's consider that PE2 is | |||
| connected to multicast router R1 and there is a network running PIM | connected to multicast router R1 and there is a network running PIM | |||
| ASM behind R1. If there are receivers behind the PIM ASM network the | ASM behind R1. If there are receivers behind the PIM ASM network the | |||
| PIM Join would be forwarded to the PIM RP (Rendezvous Point). If | PIM Join would be forwarded to the PIM RP (Rendezvous Point). If | |||
| receivers behind PIM ASM network are interested in a multicast flow | receivers behind PIM ASM network are interested in a multicast flow | |||
| originated by multicast source S2 (behind PE1), it is necessary for | originated by multicast source S2 (behind PE1), it is necessary for | |||
| PE2 to receive multicast traffic. In this case PE2 MUST originate a | PE2 to receive multicast traffic. In this case PE2 MUST originate a | |||
| (*,*) SMET route to receive all of the multicast traffic in the EVPN | (*,*) SMET route to receive all of the multicast traffic in the EVPN | |||
| domain. To generate Wildcards (*,*) routes, the procedure from | domain. To generate Wildcards (*,*) routes, the procedure from | |||
| [RFC6625] SHOULD be used. | [RFC6625] MUST be used. | |||
| 9.2. Multicast Membership Report Synch Route | 9.2. Multicast Membership Report Synch Route | |||
| This EVPN route type is used to coordinate IGMP Membership Report | This EVPN route type is used to coordinate IGMP Membership Report | |||
| (x,G) state for a given BD between the PEs attached to a given ES | (x,G) state for a given BD between the PEs attached to a given ES | |||
| operating in All- Active (or Single-Active) redundancy mode and it | operating in All- Active (or Single-Active) redundancy mode and it | |||
| consists of following: | consists of following: | |||
| +--------------------------------------------------+ | +--------------------------------------------------+ | |||
| | RD (8 octets) | | | RD (8 octets) | | |||
| skipping to change at page 32, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 26 ¶ | |||
| MLD version-X expectation, the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" | MLD version-X expectation, the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" | |||
| procedure as per [RFC7606] | procedure as per [RFC7606] | |||
| If a received BGP update is malformed such that BGP route keys cannot | If a received BGP update is malformed such that BGP route keys cannot | |||
| be extracted, then BGP update MUST be considered as invalid. | be extracted, then BGP update MUST be considered as invalid. | |||
| Receiving PE MUST apply the "Session reset" procedure of [RFC7606]. | Receiving PE MUST apply the "Session reset" procedure of [RFC7606]. | |||
| 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report | 10. IGMP Version 1 Membership Report | |||
| This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. | This document does not provide any detail about IGMPv1 processing. | |||
| Multicast working group are in process of deprecating uses of IGMPv1. | Implementations are expected to only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 | |||
| Implementations MUST only use IGMPv2 and above for IPv4 and MLDv1 and | and MLDv1 and above for IPv6. IGMPv1 routes are considered invalid | |||
| above for IPv6. IGMP V1 routes MUST be considered as invalid and the | and the PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per | |||
| PE MUST apply the "treat-as-withdraw" procedure as per [RFC7606]. | [RFC7606]. | |||
| Initial version of document did mention use of IGMPv1 and flag had | ||||
| provision to support IGMPv1. There may be an implementation which is | ||||
| deployed as initial version of document, to interop flag has not been | ||||
| changed. | ||||
| 11. Security Considerations | 11. Security Considerations | |||
| This document describes a means to efficiently operate IGMP and MLD | This document describes a means to efficiently operate IGMP and MLD | |||
| on a subnet constructed across multiple PODs or DCs via an EVPN | on a subnet constructed across multiple PODs or DCs via an EVPN | |||
| solution. The security considerations for the operation of the | solution. The security considerations for the operation of the | |||
| underlying EVPN and BGP substrate are described in [RFC7432], and | underlying EVPN and BGP substrate are described in [RFC7432], and | |||
| specific multicast considerations are outlined in [RFC6513] and | specific multicast considerations are outlined in [RFC6513] and | |||
| [RFC6514]. The EVPN and associated IGMP proxy provides a single | [RFC6514]. The EVPN and associated IGMP proxy provides a single | |||
| broadcast domain so the same security considerations of IGMPv2 | broadcast domain so the same security considerations of IGMPv2 | |||
| skipping to change at page 33, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 33, line 25 ¶ | |||
| IANA has allocated the following EVPN route types from the EVPN Route | IANA has allocated the following EVPN route types from the EVPN Route | |||
| Type registry. | Type registry. | |||
| 6 - Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag Route | 6 - Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag Route | |||
| 7 - Multicast Membership Report Synch Route | 7 - Multicast Membership Report Synch Route | |||
| 8 - Multicast Leave Synch Route | 8 - Multicast Leave Synch Route | |||
| The Multicast Flags Extended Community contains a 16-bit Flags field. | The Multicast Flags Extended Community contains a 16-bit Flags field. | |||
| The bits are numbered 0-15, from high-order to low-order. | The bits are numbered 0-15, from high-order to low-order. | |||
| The registry should be initialized as follows: | The registry should be initialized as follows: | |||
| Bit Name Reference | Bit Name Reference Change Controller | |||
| ---- -------------- ------------- | ---- -------------- ------------- ------------------ | |||
| 0 - 13 Unassigned | 0 - 13 Unassigned | |||
| 14 MLD Proxy Support This document | 14 MLD Proxy Support This document. IETF | |||
| 15 IGMP Proxy Support This document | 15 IGMP Proxy Support This document IETF | |||
| The registration policy should be "First Come First Served". | The registration policy should be "First Come First Served". | |||
| 13. Acknowledgement | 13. Acknowledgement | |||
| The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Jorge Rabadan, | The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski, Jorge Rabadan, | |||
| Anoop Ghanwani, Jeffrey Haas, Krishna Muddenahally Ananthamurthy, | Anoop Ghanwani, Jeffrey Haas, Krishna Muddenahally Ananthamurthy, | |||
| Swadesh Agrawal for reviewing and providing valuable comment. | Swadesh Agrawal for reviewing and providing valuable comment. | |||
| 14. Contributors | 14. Contributors | |||
| Derek Yeung | Derek Yeung | |||
| End of changes. 6 change blocks. | ||||
| 18 lines changed or deleted | 14 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||