IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MBONED] Proposed AMT draft spec changes and open questions

Greg Bumgardner <gbumgard@cisco.com> Mon, 01 August 2011 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <gbumgard@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2366111E812C for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XhBJcY4tDIsy for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956E611E8077 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gbumgard@cisco.com; l=11436; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312224903; x=1313434503; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=NmqM6Ik3f5BcAZAVA0wBYjWhOcgULHZF6/q9iriGES8=; b=D16o8cNvQtqQwZHJQP99MzOiU/1GFw/eN5M3isbB0qeMi65hsyZNppbp xX2KGqaKGqQHVCedEcuKPVDnSB2RwprRqSLqW9w1SZPaShdwthZs6zyt9 2DhETarxTUMkGMQXKp/D/Y+dufNd0ntnBJltPkjX1mHAlmLAFW1ks5W+K Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAMf1Nk5Io8UR/2dsb2JhbABBp193gVkBZT0WGAMCAQIBWAgBAR6oAoEjAZ5ahkIEh1qLIYUHi30
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.67,301,1309737600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="45960936"
Received: from bgl-core-2.cisco.com ([72.163.197.17]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2011 18:54:59 +0000
Received: from [10.20.185.150] (sjc-gbumgard-8915.cisco.com [10.20.185.150]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p71IsuOT025818 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:54:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4E36F542.7030802@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:49:38 -0700
From: Greg Bumgardner <gbumgard@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mboned@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070909070202090306020602"
Subject: [MBONED] Proposed AMT draft spec changes and open questions
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:54:58 -0000

  Resending this after getting bounced...

All,

Based on discussions held in the mboned session at IETF-81, I propose the following changes to the AMT draft:

- Modify AMT Request message to add a flag that indicates which protocol/address-family the gateway wishes to use for this request.


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Type=0x3  |   Reserved  |F|            Reserved           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Request Nonce                                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 AMT Request

Where F == 0 for IPv4/IGMP and F == 1 for IPv6/MLD.
A relay MUST return the appropriate general query report in the Membership Query message and a gateway MUST send the appropriate group membership report in the Membership Update message. If the query or report protocol does not match that requested in the Request message, the message MUST be ignored.


*TBD: Should a gateway use different source ports for IGMP and MLD requests, or should we indicate that a relay must allow for both IGMP and MLD reports from a single source/port address pair?
*

- Modify the AMT Membership Query Message to word align the Gateway Address field.


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Type=0x4  |    Flags      |         Response MAC          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Response MAC (continued)                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Request Nonce                                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            IGMP Membership Query or MLD Listener Query        |
    |            (including IP Header)                              |
    |            ...                                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Gateway Port Number       |       Gateway Address ...     | ?
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
    |                    ... Gateway Address (ctd) ...              | ?
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
    |                    ... Gateway Address (ctd) ...              | ?
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
    |                    ... Gateway Address (ctd) ...              | ?
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ?
    |   ... Gateway Address (ctd)   |                                 ?
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                            AMT Membership Query

is changed to..

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Type=0x4  |    Flags      |         Response MAC          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Response MAC (continued)                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Request Nonce                                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            IGMP Membership Query or MLD Listener Query        |
    |            (including IP Header)                              |
    |            ...                                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Reserved             |       Gateway Port Number     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +                       Gateway Address                         +
    |                                                               |
    +                                                               +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           AMT Membership Query


*TBD: Should the gateway address be treated as an optional field? I 
believe the spec should indicate that a relay MUST include this field in 
Membership Query messages (and set the flag), but existing gateway 
implementations should not expect to find it to provide compatibility 
with existing relay implementations.
*
-g.b.
-- 
Greg Bumgardner
Eugene, OR

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email