Skip to main content

Requirements for the extension of the IGMP/MLD proxy functionality to support multiple upstream interfaces
draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-02

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Authors Luis M. Contreras , Carlos J. Bernardos , Hitoshi Asaeda
Last updated 2016-07-07
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-02
PIM Working Group                                          LM. Contreras
Internet-Draft                                                Telefonica
Intended status: Experimental                              CJ. Bernardos
Expires: January 8, 2017                Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
                                                               H. Asaeda
                                                                    NICT
                                                            July 7, 2016

 Requirements for the extension of the IGMP/MLD proxy functionality to
                  support multiple upstream interfaces
               draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs-02

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to define the requirements for a MLD
   (for IPv6) or IGMP (for IPv4) proxy with multiple interfaces covering
   a variety of applicability scenarios.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 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 January 8, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://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

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Scenarios of applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Fixed network scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Multicast wholesale offer for residential services  .   5
         4.1.1.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Multicast resiliency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
         4.1.2.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.3.  Load balancing for multicast traffic in the metro
               segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         4.1.3.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.4.  Network merging with different multicast services . .   6
         4.1.4.1.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.5.  Summary of the requirements needed for fixed network
               scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Mobile network scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The aim of this document is to define the functionality that an IGMP/
   MLD proxy with multiple upstream interfaces should have in order to
   support different scenarios of applicability in both fixed and mobile
   networks.  This compatibility is needed in order to simplify node
   functionality and to ensure an easier deployment of multicast
   capabilities in all the use cases described in this document.

2.  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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].

   This document uses the terminology defined in RFC4605 [RFC4605].
   Specifically, the definition of Upstream and Downstream interfaces,
   which are reproduced here for completeness.

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   Upstream interface:  A proxy device's interface in the direction of
      the root of the tree.  Also called the "Host interface".

   Downstream interface:  Each of a proxy device's interfaces that is
      not in the direction of the root of the tree.  Also called the
      "Router interfaces".

3.  Problem statement

   The concept of IGMP/MLD proxy with several upstream interfaces has
   emerged as a way of optimizing (and in some cases enabling) service
   delivery scenarios where separate multicast service providers are
   reachable through the same access network infrastructure.  Figure 1
   presents the conceptual model under consideration.

                        downstream        upstream
                        interface       interface A
                             |               |
                             |               |     _______________
                             |   +-------+   v    /               \
                             |   |       O-------( Multicast Set 1 )
               +----------+  v   | IGMP/ |        \_______________/
               | Listener |------|  MLD  |         _______________
               +----------+      | Proxy |        /               \
                                 |       O-------( Multicast Set 2 )
                                 +-------+   ^    \_______________/
                                             |
                                             |
                                          upstream
                                        interface B

   Figure 1: Concept of IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple upstream interfaces

   The current version of this document is focused on fixed network
   scenarios.  Applicability of IGMP/MLD proxies with multiple upstream
   interfaces in mobile environments has been previously described in
   RFC7287 [RFC7287].  Mobile network scenarios will be covered in
   future versions of this document.

   In the case of fixed networks, multicast wholesale services in a
   competitive residential market require an efficient distribution of
   multicast traffic from different operators or content providers, i.e.
   the incumbent operator and a number of alternative providers, on the
   network infrastructure of the former.  Existing proposals are based
   on the use of PIM routing from the metro/core network, and multicast
   traffic aggregation on the same tree.  A different approach could be
   achieved with the use of an IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple upstream

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   interfaces, each of them pointing to a distinct multicast router in
   the metro/core border which is part of separated multicast trees deep
   in the network.  Figure 2 graphically describes this scenario.

                      downstream        upstream
                       interface       interface A
                          |                |
                          |                |     _______________
                          |   +--------+   v    /               \
                          |   |  Aggr. O-------( Multicast Set 1 )
                          |   | Switch |        \_______________/
                 +----+   v   |        |     (e.g. from the Incumbent
                 | AN |-------| (IGMP  |             Operator)
                 +----+       |  /MLD  |         _______________
                 (e.g.        | Proxy) |        /               \
                 DSLAM        |        O-------( Multicast Set 2 )
                 /OLT)        +--------+   ^    \_______________/
                                           | (e.g. from an Alternative
                                           |          Provider)
                                           |
                                        upstream
                                       interface B

       Figure 2: Example of usage of an IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple
              upstream interfaces in a fixed network scenario

   Since those scenarios can motivate distinct needs in terms of IGMP/
   MLD proxy functionality, it is necessary to consider a comprehensive
   approach, looking at the possible scenarios, and establishing a
   minimum set of requirements which can allow the operation of a
   versatile IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple upstream interfaces as a
   common entity to all of them (i.e., no different kinds of proxies
   depending on the scenario, but a common proxy applicable to all the
   potential scenarios).

4.  Scenarios of applicability

   Having multiple upstream interfaces creates a new decision space for
   delivering the proper multicast content to the subscriber.  Basically
   it is now possible to implement channel-based or subscriber-based
   upstream selection, according to mechanisms or policies that could be
   defined for the multicast service provision.

   This section describes in detail a number of scenarios of
   applicability of an IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple upstream interfaces
   in place.  A number of requirements for the IGMP/MLD proxy
   functionality are identified from those scenarios.

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

4.1.  Fixed network scenarios

   Residential broadband users get access to multiple IP services
   through fixed network infrastructures.  End user's equipment is
   connected to an access node, and the traffic of a number of access
   nodes is collected in aggregation switches.

   For the multicast service, the use of an IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple
   upstream interfaces in those switches can provide service flexibility
   in a lightweight and simpler manner if compared with PIM-routing
   based alternatives.

4.1.1.  Multicast wholesale offer for residential services

   This scenario has been already introduced in the previous section,
   and can be seen in Figure 2.  There are two different operators, the
   one operating the fixed network where the end user is connected
   (e.g., typically an incumbent operator), and the one providing the
   Internet service to the end user (e.g., an alternative Internet
   service provider).  Both can offer multicast streams that can be
   subscribed by the end user, independently of which provider
   contributes with the content.

   Note that it is assumed that both providers offer distinct multicast
   groups.  However, more than one subscription to multicast channels of
   different providers could take place simultaneously.

4.1.1.1.  Requirements

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by the end user to the corresponding provider's
      multicast router.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by each of the providers to the corresponding end
      user.

4.1.2.  Multicast resiliency

   In current PIM-based solutions, the resiliency of the multicast
   distribution relays on the routing capabilities provided by protocols
   like PIM and VRRP RFC5798 [RFC5798].  A simpler scheme could be
   achieved by implementing different upstream interfaces on IGMP/MLD
   proxies, providing path diversity through the connection to distinct
   leaves of a given multicast tree.

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   It is assumed that only one of the upstream interfaces is active in
   receiving the multicast content, while the other is up and in standby
   mode for fast switching.

4.1.2.1.  Requirements

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by the end user to the corresponding active upstream
      interface.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages received in the active upstream to the end users, while
      ignoring the control messages of the standby upstream interface.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able of rapidly switching from the
      active to the standby upstream interface in case of network
      failure, transparently to the end user.

4.1.3.  Load balancing for multicast traffic in the metro segment

   A single upstream interface in existing IGMP/MLD proxy functionality
   typically forces the distribution of all the channels on the same
   path in the last segment of the network.  Multiple upstream
   interfaces could naturally split the demand, alleviating the
   bandwidth requirements in the metro segment.

4.1.3.1.  Requirements

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by the end user to the corresponding multicast
      router which provides the channel of interest.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by each of the multicast routers to the
      corresponding end user.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to decide which upstream
      interface is selected for any new channel request according to
      defined criteria (e.g., load balancing).

4.1.4.  Network merging with different multicast services

   In some network merging situations, the multicast services provided
   before in each of the merged networks are maintained for the
   respective customer base (usually in a temporal fashion until the
   multicast service is redifined in a new single offer, but not
   necessarily, or not in short term, e.g. because of commercial
   agreements for each of the previous service offers).

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   In order to assists that network merging situations, IGMP/MLD proxies
   with multiple upstream interfaces can help in the transition
   simplifying the service provision and facilitating service
   continuity.

4.1.4.1.  Requirements

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by the end user to the corresponding multicast
      router which provides the channel of interest, according to the
      service subscription.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to deliver multicast control
      messages sent by each of the multicast routers to the
      corresponding end user, according to the service subscription.

   o  The IGMP/MLD proxy should be able to decide which upstream
      interface is selected for any new channel request according to
      defined criteria (e.g., service subscription).

4.1.5.  Summary of the requirements needed for fixed network scenarios

   Following the analysis above, a number of different requirements can
   be identified by the IGMP/MLD proxy to support multiple upstream
   interfaces in fixed network scenarios.  The following table
   summarizes these requirements.

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

                       +-----------------------------------------------+
                       |            Fixed Network Scenarios            |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Functio- | Multicast | Multicast |   Load    |  Network  |
             |nality   | Wholesale | Resiliency| Balancing |  Merging  |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Upstream |           |           |           |           |
             |Control  |     X     |     X     |     X     |     X     |
             |Delivery |           |           |           |           |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Downstr. |           |           |           |           |
             |Control  |     X     |     X     |     X     |     X     |
             |Delivery |           |           |           |           |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Active / |           |           |           |           |
             |Standby  |           |     X     |           |           |
             |Upstream |           |           |           |           |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Upstr i/f|           |           |           |           |
             |selection|           |           |     X     |     X     |
             |per group|           |           |           |           |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
             |Upstr i/f|           |           |           |           |
             |selection|           |     X     |           |           |
             |all group|           |           |           |           |
             +---------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

      Figure 3: Functionality needed on IGMP/MLD proxy with multiple
      upstream interfaces per application scenario in fixed networks

4.2.  Mobile network scenarios

   To be done.

5.  Security Considerations

   All the security considerations in RFC4605 [RFC4605] are directly
   applicable to this proposal.  Apart from that, if proper mechanisms
   (i.e., implementation practices) are in place for channel-based or
   subscriber-based upstream interface selection, Denial of Service
   attacks can be prevented.

6.  IANA Considerations

   To be completed

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Thomas C.
   Schmidt and Dirk von Hugo for their comments and suggestions.

8.  References

8.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4605]  Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
              "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
              ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
              August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5798]  Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
              Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798>.

   [RFC7287]  Schmidt, T., Ed., Gao, S., Zhang, H., and M. Waehlisch,
              "Mobile Multicast Sender Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6
              (PMIPv6) Domains", RFC 7287, DOI 10.17487/RFC7287, June
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7287>.

Authors' Addresses

   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica
   Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
   Sur-3 building, 3rd floor
   Madrid  28050
   Spain

   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
   URI:   http://people.tid.es/LuisM.Contreras/

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  Reqs for MLD proxy with multiple upstream      July 2016

   Carlos J. Bernardos
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad, 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   Spain

   Phone: +34 91624 6236
   Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
   URI:   http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/

   Hitoshi Asaeda
   National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
   4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi
   Koganei, Tokyo  184-8795
   Japan

   Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp

Contreras, et al.        Expires January 8, 2017               [Page 10]