Re: 4941bis and multicast & QOS

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, 11:53 Gyan Mishra, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry Bert I missed your reply - responding now
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 3:36 PM Manfredi (US), Albert E <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
>>>
>>> > How would multicast ASM or SSM work with the privacy extension
>>> temporary address enabled.  With the privacy temporary address enabled the
>>> IGMP Join would go out the temporary addresses, just as would normal
>>> unicast traffic.
>>>
>>> That's a good question, although only SSM would be a problem. In ASM,
>>> the IGMP/MLD join reports always go to the group multicast address anyway,
>>> and presumably, that won’t change. The unique source address of the client
>>> joining, or of the multicast source, should not matter. When responding to
>>> a new IGMP query, a new source address could be used in the report, still
>>> indicating to the router that membership exists. I would think, no problem.
>>>
>>
>>    You make a good point as to where the problem may fall.  So with ASM
>> model the receiver is not source aware and so sends a IGMP join via
>> temporary address RPF interface for outgoing “client like” unicast
>> connections.  The LHR DR on the subnet creates MRIB state and forwards *,G
>> shared tree join along RPF path to the Anycast RP /MSDP - which has active
>> SA cache entry for the Source within the multicast routing domain.  The LHR
>> now learns the SA for the group and initiates SPT switchover to the SPT
>> tree and builds a tree directly to the source.
>>
>> With SSM the receiver is source aware via MLDv2, which now has source
>> field in the packet for the SSM channel - along with well know default SSM
>> group 232/8 - receiver is able to send via temporary address S,G join and
>> to its LHR DR router on the subnet - which now builds SPT tree directly to
>> the source.
>>
>> So this all works well in a client / server multicast model with pim
>> sparse-mode where the clients are receiver only and the server is source
>> only.
>>
>> In a peer2peer multicast model where the source acts as both receiver and
>> source and the receiver acts as both receiver and source is the “bi-dir
>> PIM” model -  this is the MPLS MVPN world translates into MP2MP LMDT
>> instantiated via mLDP.
>>
>> Multicast is predominately used in enterprises.  The internet MBONE never
>> really took off due to multicast use of UDP RTP  transport for streaming
>> and thus a requirement for end to end QOS for reliability.
>>
>> So in the enterprise bi-dir pim model application requiring peer2peer
>> multicast is the only scenario where you would run into issues with the
>> privacy temporary address changing and becoming invalid resulting in
>> session reset.  The app based source discovery would have to trigger
>> changing of SSM channel when the source becomes invalid so the session
>> would not reset.
>>
>> I think for this peer2peer model to work you really need a stable address
>> on the host.
>>
>
> No you don't.
>

> You need an address that is stable enough for the length of the
> communication session, with stable enough meaning having a lifetime long
> enough that it doesn't disrupt the communication session.
>
> How long are you multicast sessions going to be?
>

 Since this is Clint to Client P2P no real servers involved now I think we
would be fine even with 4941bis PL 1 VL 2.

>
> If the length of the communication session is going to be less than the
> valid lifetime of a temporary address - by default 1 week - then there is
> no issue at all with using a temporary address, and in the interests of
> privacy it would be better to use a temporary address over an RFC7217
> stable address.
>
> A server could have only temporary addresses as long as (a) communications
> sessions with clients are shorter than 1 week, and (b) the server updates
> DNS with new temporary address AAAA records dynamically.
>
> Stable addresses for servers is mainly just about avoiding dynamically
> updating DNS.
>
> Note that RFC7217 or RFC4862 EUI-64 addresses aren't permanent either.
> They too have lifetimes, PL=7 days, VL=4 weeks.
>

> They will likely persist longer than that, however that is totally
> dependent on them receiving RAs or DHCPv6 refreshing and extending the
> lifetime, and the interface staying attached to the same link.
>

   The router is always sending periodic RA so the lifetime is continually
being reset.  So in essence the address is stable and in fact permanent as
long as the device remains attached.  If the device is attached and
permanent  non mobile device the address would be permanent due to the
periodic RAs from default gateway.  Cisco and other vendor implementations
have the option to set the valid lifetime on the RA to maximum value which
is a 32 bit number and that in fact sets it to infinite.  The knob is there
however since the RA is periodic constantly resetting the VL, not sure why
you would ever hardcore the VL in the RA to infinity.

>
> RFC7217/RFC4862 stable addresses aren't permanent addresses. Permanent
> addresses would have infinite lifetimes and never expire (the loopback
> address is a permanent one, as are link-local addresses, because they have
> infinite PL and VL).
>

    See above

>
>
>
>> This could be one use case where RFC 4941bis would fail - with removing
>> the stable address as it’s currently written.
>>
>>>
>>> In SSM, the IP destination address of the reports is a well-known
>>> multicast address, to routers, but of course, if you want to include only a
>>> certain set of sources, those source IP address(es) in the IGMP/MLD report
>>> either have to be valid, or you get nothing.
>>>
>>> > The temporary address would be the  RPF path shared and SPT tree.
>>>
>>> Isn’t this just related to multicast routing, between routers? Their
>>> addresses would not change at a dizzying rate?
>>>
>>> Bert
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Gyan  Mishra
>>
>> Network Engineering & Technology
>>
>> Verizon
>>
>> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>>
>> Phone: [phone]
>>
>> Email: [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --

Gyan  Mishra

Network Engineering & Technology

Verizon

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]