Mboned J. Holland
Internet-Draft Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Updates: 7450 (if approved) January 25, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 29, 2019
DNS Reverse IP AMT Discovery
draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-00
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7450 (AMT) by extending the relay discovery
process to use a new DNS resource record for source-specific AMT
relay discovery when joining source-specific multicast channels. A
multicast sender configures a reverse IP DNS zone with the new
AMTRELAY RR (defined in this document) to advertise a set of relays
that can receive and forward multicast traffic from that sender
inside a unicast AMT tunnel, in order to transit non-multicast-
capable network segments.
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 https://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 July 29, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(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
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
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
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. Relays and Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Relay Discovery Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Signaling and Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Optimal Relay Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Guidelines for Restarting Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2. Tunnel Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3. Flow Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.4. Relay Loading and Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.5. Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery . . 12
2.4.6. Connecting to Multiple Relays . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5. DNS Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6. Waiting for DNS resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Example Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Example Receiving Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1. Tier 3 ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2. Small Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Example Sending Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1. Sender-controlled Relays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.2. Provider-controlled Relays . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. AMTRELAY Resource Record Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. AMTRELAY RRType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2. AMTRELAY RData Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.1. RData Format - Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2.2. RData Format - Discovery Optional (D-bit) . . . . . . 21
4.2.3. RData Format - Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.4. RData Format - Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3. AMTRELAY Record Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.1. Representation of AMTRELAY RRs . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. Record-spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. Local Override . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3. Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. New RRType Request Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix B. Unknown RRType construction . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
This document defines DNS Reverse IP AMT Discovery (DRIAD), a
mechanism for AMT gateways to discover AMT relays which are capable
of forwarding multicast traffic from a known source IP address.
AMT (Automatic Multicast Tunneling) is defined in [RFC7450], and
provides a method to transport multicast traffic over a unicast
tunnel, in order to traverse non-multicast-capable network segments.
Section 4.1.5 of [RFC7450] explains that relay selection might need
to depend on the source of the multicast traffic, since a relay must
be able to receive multicast traffic from the desired source in order
to forward it.
That section suggests DNS-based queries as a possible solution.
DRIAD is a DNS-based solution, as suggested there. This solution
also addresses the relay discovery issues in the "Disadvantages"
lists in Section 3.3 of [RFC8313] and Section 3.4 of [RFC8313].
The goal for DRIAD is to enable multicast connectivity between
separate multicast-enabled networks when neither the sending nor the
receiving network is connected to a multicast-enabled backbone,
without pre-configuring any peering arrangement between the networks.
This document updates Section 5.2.3.4 of [RFC7450] by adding a new
extension to the relay discovery procedure.
1.1. Background
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basic DNS concepts
described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], and the subsequent documents that
update them, particularly [RFC2181].
The reader is also assumed to be familiar with the concepts and
terminology regarding source-specific multicast as described in
[RFC4607] and the use of IGMPv3 [RFC3376] and MLDv2 [RFC3810] for
group management of source-specific multicast channels, as described
in [RFC4604].
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
The reader should also be familiar with AMT, particularly the
terminology listed in Section 3.2 of [RFC7450] and Section 3.3 of
[RFC7450].
1.2. Terminology
1.2.1. Relays and Gateways
When reading this document, it's especially helpful to recall that
once an AMT tunnel is established, the relay receives native
multicast traffic and sends unicast tunnel-encapsulated traffic to
the gateway, and the gateway receives the tunnel-encapsulated
packets, decapsulates them, and forwards them as native multicast
packets, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Multicast +-----------+ Unicast +-------------+ Multicast
>---------> | AMT relay | >=======> | AMT gateway | >--------->
+-----------+ +-------------+
Figure 1: AMT Tunnel Illustration
1.2.2. Definitions
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Term | Definition |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| (S,G) | A source-specific multicast channel, as described in |
| | [RFC4607]. A pair of IP addresses with a source host |
| | IP and destination group IP. |
| | |
| downstream | Further from the source of traffic. |
| | |
| FQDN | Fully Qualified Domain Name, as described in |
| | [RFC8499] |
| | |
| gateway | An AMT gateway, as described in [RFC7450] |
| | |
| L flag | The "Limit" flag described in Section 5.1.1.4 of |
| | [RFC7450] |
| | |
| relay | An AMT relay, as described in [RFC7450] |
| | |
| RPF | Reverse Path Forwarding, as described in [RFC5110] |
| | |
| RR | A DNS Resource Record, as described in [RFC1034] |
| | |
| RRType | A DNS Resource Record Type, as described in |
| | [RFC1034] |
| | |
| SSM | Source-specific multicast, as described in [RFC4607] |
| | |
| upstream | Closer to the source of traffic. |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
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
[RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Relay Discovery Operation
2.1. Overview
The AMTRELAY resource record (RR) defined in this document is used to
publish the IP address or domain name of an AMT relay that can
receive, encapsulate, and forward multicast traffic from a particular
sender.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
The sender is the owner of the RR, and configures the RR so that it
contains the address or domain name of an AMT relay that can receive
multicast IP traffic from that sender.
This enables AMT gateways in remote networks to discover an AMT relay
that is capable of forwarding traffic from the sender. This in turn
enables those AMT gateways to receive the multicast traffic tunneled
over a unicast AMT tunnel from those relays, and then to pass the
multicast packets into networks or applications that are using the
gateway to subscribe to traffic from that sender.
This mechanism only works for source-specific multicast (SSM)
channels. The source address of the (S,G) is reversed and used as an
index into one of the reverse mapping trees (in-addr.arpa for IPv4,
as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035], or ip6.arpa for IPv6, as
described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3596]).
This mechanism should be treated as an extension of the AMT relay
discovery procedure described in section 5.2.3.4 of [RFC7450]. A
gateway that supports this method of AMT relay discovery SHOULD use
this method whenever it's performing the relay discovery procedure,
and the source IP addresses for desired (S,G)s are known to the
gateway, and conditions match the requirements outlined in
Section 2.3.
Some detailed example use cases are provided in Section 3, and other
applicable example topologies appear in Section 3.3 of [RFC8313],
Section 3.4 of [RFC8313], and Section 3.5 of [RFC8313].
2.2. Signaling and Discovery
This section describes a typical example of the end-to-end process
for signaling a receiver's join of a SSM channel that relies on an
AMTRELAY RR.
The example in Figure 2 contains 2 multicast-enabled networks that
are both connected to the internet with non-multicast-capable links,
and which have no direct association with each other.
A content provider operates a sender, which is a source of multicast
traffic inside a multicast-capable network.
An end user who is a customer of the content provider has a
multicast-capable internet service provider, which operates a
receiving network that uses an AMT gateway. The AMT gateway is
DRIAD-capable.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
The content provider provides the user with a receiving application
that tries to subscribe to at least one (S,G). This receiving
application could for example be a file transfer system using FLUTE
[RFC6726] or a live video stream using RTP [RFC3550], or any other
application that might subscribe to a SSM channel.
+---------------+
| Sender |
| | | 198.51.100.15 |
| | +---------------+
|Data| |
|Flow| Multicast |
\| |/ Network |
\ / | 5: Propagate RPF for Join(S,G)
\ / +---------------+
\/ | AMT Relay |
| 203.0.113.15 |
+---------------+
| 4: Gateway connects to Relay,
sends Join(S,G) over tunnel
|
Unicast
Tunnel |
^ | 3: --> DNS Query: type=AMTRELAY,
| / 15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.
| | / <-- Response:
Join/Leave +-------------+ AMTRELAY=203.0.113.15
Signals | AMT gateway |
| +-------------+
| | 2: Propagate RPF for Join(S,G)
| Multicast |
Network |
| 1: Join(S=198.51.100.15, G)
+-------------+
| Receiver |
| (end user) |
+-------------+
Figure 2: DRIAD Messaging
In this simple example, the sender IP is 198.51.100.15, and the relay
IP is 203.0.113.15.
The content provider has previously configured the DNS zone that
contains the domain name "15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.", which is the
reverse lookup domain name for his sender. The zone file contains an
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
AMTRELAY RR with the Relay's IP address. (See Section 4.3 for
details about the AMTRELAY RR format and semantics.)
The sequence of events depicted in Figure 2 is as follows:
1. The end user starts the app, which issues a join to the (S,G):
(198.51.100.15, 232.252.0.2).
2. The join propagates with RPF through the multicast-enabled
network with PIM [RFC7761] or another multicast routing
mechanism, until the AMT gateway receives a signal to join the
(S,G).
3. The AMT gateway performs a reverse DNS lookup for the AMTRELAY
RRType, by sending an AMTRELAY RRType query for the FQDN
"15.100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.", using the reverse IP domain name
for the sender's source IP address (the S from the (S,G)), as
described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035].
The DNS resolver for the AMT gateway uses ordinary DNS recursive
resolution until it has the authoritative result that the content
provider configured, which informs the AMT gateway that the relay
address is 203.0.113.15.
4. The AMT gateway performs AMT handshakes with the AMT relay as
described in Section 4 of [RFC7450], then forwards a Membership
report to the relay indicating subscription to the (S,G).
5. The relay propagates the join through its network toward the
sender, then forwards the appropriate AMT-encapsulated traffic to
the gateway, which decapsulates and forwards it as native
multicast through its downstream network to the end user.
2.3. Optimal Relay Selection
The reverse source IP DNS query of an AMTRELAY RR is a good way for a
gateway to discover a relay that is known to the sender.
However, it is NOT necessarily a good way to discover the best relay
for that gateway to use, because the RR IP will only provide
information about relays known to the source.
If there is an upstream relay in a network that is topologically
closer to the gateway and able to receive and forward multicast
traffic from the sender, that relay is better for the gateway to use,
since more of the network path uses native multicast, allowing more
chances for packet replication. But since that relay is not known to
the sender, it won't be advertised in the sender's reverse IP DNS
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
record. An example network that illustrates this scenario is
outlined in Section 3.1.2.
It's only appropriate for an AMT gateway to discover an AMT relay by
querying an AMTRELAY RR owned by a sender when all of these
conditions are met:
1. The gateway needs to propagate a join of an (S,G) over AMT,
because in the gateway's network, no RPF next hop toward the
source can propagate a native multicast join of the (S,G); and
2. The gateway is not already connected to a relay that forwards
multicast traffic from the source of the (S,G); and
3. The gateway is not configured to use a particular IP address for
AMT discovery, or a relay discovered with that IP is not able to
forward traffic from the source of the (S,G); and
4. The gateway is not able to find an upstream AMT relay with DNS-SD
[RFC6763], using "_amt._udp" as the Service section of the
queries, or a relay discovered this way is not able to forward
traffic from the source of the (S,G)
When the above conditions are met, the gateway has no path within its
local network that can receive multicast traffic from the source IP
of the (S,G).
In this situation, the best way to find a relay that can forward the
required traffic is to use information that comes from the operator
of the sender. When the sender has configured the AMTRELAY RR
defined in this document, gateways can use the DRIAD mechanism
defined in this document to discover the relay information provided
by the sender.
2.4. Guidelines for Restarting Discovery
2.4.1. Overview
It's expected that gateways deployed in different environments will
use a variety of heuristics to decide when it's appropriate to
restart the relay discovery process, in order to meet different
performance goals (for example, to fulfill different kinds of service
level agreements).
The advice in this section should be treated as non-normative
guidelines to operators and implementors working with AMT systems
that can use DRIAD as part of the relay discovery process.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
Section 5.2.3.4.1 of [RFC7450] lists several events that may cause a
gateway to start or restart the discovery procedure.
This document provides some updates and recommendations regarding the
handling of these and similar events. The events are copied here and
numbered for easier reference:
1. When a gateway pseudo-interface is started (enabled).
2. When the gateway wishes to report a group subscription when none
currently exist.
3. Before sending the next Request message in a membership update
cycle.
4. After the gateway fails to receive a response to a Request
message.
5. After the gateway receives a Membership Query message with the L
flag set to 1.
There are several new events that gateway heuristics may
appropriately use to restart the discovery process, including:
1. When the gateway wishes to report a (S,G) subscription with a
source address that does not currently have other group
subscriptions.
2. When the DNS TTL expires for an AMTRELAY RR or for a domain name
contained within the AMTRELAY RR.
3. When there is a network change detected, for example when a
gateway is operating inside an end user device or application,
and the device joins a different network, or when the domain
portion of a DNS-SD domain name changes in response to a DHCP
message or administrative configuration.
4. When loss or congestion is detected in the stream of AMT packets
from a relay.
This list is not exhaustive, nor are any of the listed events always
strictly required to force a restart of the discovery process.
Note that during event #1, a gateway may use DNS-SD, but does not
have sufficient information to use DRIAD, since no source is known.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
2.4.2. Tunnel Stability
In general, subscribers to active traffic flows that are being
forwarded by an AMT gateway are less likely to experience a
degradation in service (for example, from missing or duplicated
packets) when the gateway continues using the same relay, as long the
relay is not overloaded and the network conditions remain stable.
Therefore, gateways should avoid performing a full restart of the
discovery process during routine cases of event #3 (sending a new
Request message), but see Section 2.4.3 and Section 2.4.5 for more
information about exceptions when it may be appropriate to use this
event.
Likewise, some operators might use a short DNS TTL expiration (event
#7) to allow for more responsive load balancing. If a gateway
frequently sees short DNS TTLs (for example, under approximately 15
minutes) for some sources, a helpful heuristic may be to avoid
restarting the discovery process for those sources, for example with
an exponential backoff, or a hold-down timer that depends on the
health or bit-rate of the active and subscribed traffic currently
being forwarded through the tunnel.
2.4.3. Flow Health
In some gateway deployments, it is feasible to monitor the health of
traffic flows through the gateway, for example by detecting the rate
of packet loss by communicating out of band with clients, or
monitoring packets of known protocols with sequence numbers. Where
feasible, it's encouraged for gateways to use such traffic health
information to trigger a restart of the discovery process during
event #3 (before sending a new Request message).
However, to avoid synchronized rediscovery by many gateways
simultaneously after a transient network event upstream of a relay
results in many receivers detecting poor flow health at the same
time, it's recommended to add a random delay before restarting the
discovery process in this case.
The span of the random portion of the delay should be no less than 10
seconds by default, but may be administratively configured to support
different performance requirements.
2.4.4. Relay Loading and Shutdown
The L flag (see Section 5.1.4.4 of [RFC7450] is the preferred
mechanism for a relay to signal overloading or a graceful shutdown to
gateways.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
A gateway that supports handling of the L flag should generally
restart the discovery process when it processes a Membership Query
packet with the L flag set. It is also recommended that gateways
avoid choosing a relay that has recently sent an L flag, with
approximately a 10-minute hold-down. Gateways MAY use heuristics
such as this hold-down to override selection of a relay preferred by
the precedence field in the AMTRELAY RR (see Section 4.2.1).
2.4.5. Relay Discovery Messages vs. Restarting Discovery
A gateway should only send DNS queries with the AMTRELAY RRType or
the DNS-SD DNS queries for an AMT service as part of starting or
restarting the discovery process.
However, all AMT relays are required to support handling of Relay
Discovery messages (e.g. in Section 5.3.3.2 of [RFC7450]).
So a gateway with an existing connection to a relay can send a Relay
Discovery message to the unicast address of that AMT relay. Under
stable conditions with an unloaded relay, it's expected that the
relay will return its own unicast address in the Relay Advertisement,
in response to such a Relay Discovery message. Since this will not
result in the gateway changing to another relay unless the relay
directs the gateway away, this is a reasonable exception to the
advice against handling event #3 described in Section 2.4.2.
This behavior is discouraged for gateways that do support the L flag,
to avoid sending unnecessary packets over the network.
However, gateways that do not support the L flag may be able to avoid
a disruption in the forwarded traffic by sending such Relay Discovery
messages regularly. When a relay is under load or has started a
graceful shutdown, it may respond with a different relay address,
which the gateway can use to connect to a different relay. This kind
of coordinated handoff will likely result in a smaller disruption to
the traffic than if the relay simply stops responding to Request
messages, and stops forwarding traffic.
This style of Relay Discovery message (one sent to the unicast
address of a relay that's already forwarding traffic to this gateway)
should not be considered a full restart of the relay discovery
process. It is recommended for gateways to support the L flag, but
for gateways that do not support the L flag, sending this message
during event #3 may help mitigate service degradation when relays
become unstable.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
2.4.6. Connecting to Multiple Relays
Relays discovered via the AMTRELAY RR are source-specific relay
addresses, and may use different pseudo-interfaces from each other
and from relays discovered via DNS-SD or a non-source-specific
address, as described in Section 4.1.2.1 of [RFC7450].
Restarting the discovery process for one pseudo-interface does not
require restarting the discovery process for other pseudo-interfaces.
Gateway heuristics about restarting the discovery process should
operate independently for different tunnels to relays, when
responding to events that are specific to the different tunnels.
2.5. DNS Configuration
Often an AMT gateway will only have access to the source and group IP
addresses of the desired traffic, and will not know any other name
for the source of the traffic. Because of this, typically the best
way of looking up AMTRELAY RRs will be by using the source IP address
as an index into one of the reverse mapping trees (in-addr.arpa for
IPv4, as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035], or ip6.arpa for IPv6,
as described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3596]).
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that AMTRELAY RRs be added to reverse IP
zones as appropriate. AMTRELAY records MAY also appear in other
zones, but the primary intended use case requires a reverse IP
mapping for the source from an (S,G) in order to be useful to most
AMT gateways.
When performing the AMTRELAY RR lookup, any CNAMEs or DNAMEs found
MUST be followed. This is necessary to support zone delegation.
Some examples outlining this need are described in [RFC2317].
See Section 4 and Section 4.3 for a detailed explanation of the
contents for a DNS Zone file.
2.6. Waiting for DNS resolution
The DNS query functionality is expected to follow ordinary standards
and best practices for DNS clients. A gateway MAY use an existing
DNS client implementation that does so, and MAY rely on that client's
retry logic to determine the timeouts between retries.
Otherwise, a gateway MAY re-send a DNS query if it does not receive
an appropriate DNS response within some timeout period. If the
gateway retries multiple times, the timeout period SHOULD be adjusted
to provide a random exponential back-off.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
As with the waiting process for the Relay Advertisement message from
Section 5.2.3.4.3 of [RFC7450], the RECOMMENDED timeout is a random
value in the range [initial_timeout, MIN(initial_timeout *
2^retry_count, maximum_timeout)], with a RECOMMENDED initial_timeout
of 1 second and a RECOMMENDED maximum_timeout of 120 seconds.
3. Example Deployments
3.1. Example Receiving Networks
3.1.1. Tier 3 ISP
One example of a receiving network is an ISP that offers multicast
ingest services to its subscribers, illustrated in Figure 3.
In the example network below, subscribers can join (S,G)s with MLDv2
or IGMPv3 as described in [RFC4604], and the AMT gateway in this ISP
can receive and forward multicast traffic from one of the example
sending networks in Section 3.2 by discovering the appropriate AMT
relays with a DNS lookup for the AMTRELAY RR with the reverse IP of
the source in the (S,G).
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
Internet
^ ^ Multicast-enabled
| | Receiving Network
+------|------------|-------------------------+
| | | |
| +--------+ +--------+ +=========+ |
| | Border |---| Border | | AMT | |
| | Router | | Router | | gateway | |
| +--------+ +--------+ +=========+ |
| | | | |
| +-----+------+-----------+--+ |
| | | |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ |
| | Agg Routers | .. | Agg Routers | |
| +-------------+ +-------------+ |
| / \ \ / \ |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| |Access Systems | ....... |Access Systems | |
| |(CMTS/OLT/etc.)| |(CMTS/OLT/etc.)| |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | | |
+--------|------------------------|-----------+
| |
+---+-+-+---+---+ +---+-+-+---+---+
| | | | | | | | | |
/-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\
|_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_|
Subscribers
Figure 3: Receiving ISP Example
3.1.2. Small Office
Another example receiving network is a small branch office that
regularly accesses some multicast content, illustrated in Figure 4.
This office has desktop devices that need to receive some multicast
traffic, so an AMT gateway runs on a LAN with these devices, to pull
traffic in through a non-multicast next-hop.
The office also hosts some mobile devices that have AMT gateway
instances embedded inside apps, in order to receive multicast traffic
over their non-multicast wireless LAN. (Note that the "Legacy
Router" is a simplification that's meant to describe a variety of
possible conditions- for example it could be a device providing a
split-tunnel VPN as described in [RFC7359], deliberately excluding
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
multicast traffic for a VPN tunnel, rather than a device which is
incapable of multicast forwarding.)
Internet
(non-multicast)
^
| Office Network
+----------|----------------------------------+
| | |
| +---------------+ (Wifi) Mobile apps |
| | Modem+ | Wifi | - - - - w/ embedded |
| | Router | AP | AMT gateways |
| +---------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| +----------------+ |
| | Legacy Router | |
| | (unicast) | |
| +----------------+ |
| / | \ |
| / | \ |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+ |
| | Phones | | ConfRm | | Desks | AMT | |
| | subnet | | subnet | | subnet | gateway | |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+ |
| |
+---------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Small Office (no multicast up)
By adding an AMT relay to this office network as in Figure 5, it's
possible to make use of multicast services from the example
multicast-capable ISP in Section 3.1.1.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
Multicast-capable ISP
^
| Office Network
+----------|----------------------------------+
| | |
| +---------------+ (Wifi) Mobile apps |
| | Modem+ | Wifi | - - - - w/ embedded |
| | Router | AP | AMT gateways |
| +---------------+ |
| | +=======+ |
| +---Wired LAN---| AMT | |
| | | relay | |
| +----------------+ +=======+ |
| | Legacy Router | |
| | (unicast) | |
| +----------------+ |
| / | \ |
| / | \ |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+ |
| | Phones | | ConfRm | | Desks | AMT | |
| | subnet | | subnet | | subnet | gateway | |
| +--------+ +--------+ +--------+=========+ |
| |
+---------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Small Office Example
When multicast-capable networks are chained like this, with a network
like the one in Figure 5 receiving internet services from a
multicast-capable network like the one in Figure 3, it's important
for AMT gateways to reach the more local AMT relay, in order to avoid
accidentally tunneling multicast traffic from a more distant AMT
relay with unicast, and failing to utilize the multicast transport
capabilities of the network in Figure 3.
For this reason, it's RECOMMENDED that AMT gateways by default
perform service discovery using DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD)
[RFC6763] for _amt._udp.<domain> (with <domain> chosen as described
in Section 11 of [RFC6763]) and use the AMT relays discovered that
way in preference to AMT relays discoverable via the mechanism
defined in this document (DRIAD).
It's also RECOMMENDED that when the well-known anycast IP addresses
defined in Section 7 of [RFC7450] are suitable for discovering an AMT
relay that can forward traffic from the source, that a DNS record
with the AMTRELAY RRType be published for those IP addresses along
with any other appropriate AMTRELAY RRs to indicate the best relative
precedences for receiving the source traffic.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
Accordingly, AMT gateways SHOULD by default discover the most-
preferred relay first by DNS-SD, then by DRIAD as described in this
document (in precedence order, as described in Section 4.2.1), then
with the anycast addresses defined in Section 7 of [RFC7450] (namely:
192.52.193.1 and 2001:3::1) if those IPs weren't listed in the
AMTRELAY RRs. This default behavior MAY be overridden by
administrative configuration where other behavior is more appropriate
for the gateway within its network.
The discovery and connection process for multiple relays MAY operate
in parallel, but when forwarding multicast group membership reports
with new joins from an AMT gateway, membership reports SHOULD be
forwarded to the most-preferred relays first, falling back to less
preferred relays only after failing to receive traffic for an
appropriate timeout, and only after reporting a leave to any more-
preferred connected relays that have failed to subscribe to the
traffic.
It is RECOMMENDED that the default timeout for receiving traffic be
no less than 3 seconds, but the value MAY be overridden by
administrative configuration, where known groups or channels need a
different timeout for successful application performance.
3.2. Example Sending Networks
3.2.1. Sender-controlled Relays
When a sender network is also operating AMT relays to distribute
multicast traffic, as in Figure 6, each address could appear as an
AMTRELAY RR for the reverse IP of the sender, or one or more domain
names could appear in AMTRELAY RRs, and the AMT relay addresses can
be discovered by finding an A or AAAA record from those domain names.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
Sender Network
+-----------------------------------+
| |
| +--------+ +=======+ +=======+ |
| | Sender | | AMT | | AMT | |
| +--------+ | relay | | relay | |
| | +=======+ +=======+ |
| | | | |
| +-----+------+----------+ |
| | |
+-----------|-----------------------+
v
Internet
(non-multicast)
Figure 6: Small Office Example
3.2.2. Provider-controlled Relays
When an ISP offers a service to transmit outbound multicast traffic
through a forwarding network, it might also offer AMT relays in order
to reach receivers without multicast connectivity to the forwarding
network, as in Figure 7. In this case it's RECOMMENDED that the ISP
also provide a domain name for the AMT relays for use with the
discovery process defined in this document.
When the sender wishes to use the relays provided by the ISP for
forwarding multicast traffic, an AMTRELAY RR should be configured to
use the domain name provided by the ISP, to allow for address
reassignment of the relays without forcing the sender to reconfigure
the corresponding AMTRELAY RRs.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
+--------+
| Sender |
+---+----+ Multicast-enabled
| Sending Network
+-----------|-------------------------------+
| v |
| +------------+ +=======+ +=======+ |
| | Agg Router | | AMT | | AMT | |
| +------------+ | relay | | relay | |
| | +=======+ +=======+ |
| | | | |
| +-----+------+--------+---------+ |
| | | |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
| | Border |---| Border | |
| | Router | | Router | |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+-----|------------|------------------------+
| |
v v
Internet
(non-multicast)
Figure 7: Sending ISP Example
4. AMTRELAY Resource Record Definition
4.1. AMTRELAY RRType
The AMTRELAY RRType has the mnemonic AMTRELAY and type code TBD1
(decimal).
4.2. AMTRELAY RData Format
The AMTRELAY RData consists of a 8-bit precedence field, a 1-bit
"Discovery Optional" field, a 7-bit type field, and a variable length
relay 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| precedence |D| type | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ relay ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
4.2.1. RData Format - Precedence
This is an 8-bit precedence for this record. It is interpreted in
the same way as the PREFERENCE field described in Section 3.3.9 of
[RFC1035].
Relays listed in AMTRELAY records with a lower value for precedence
are to be attempted first.
Where there is a tie in precedence, the default choice of relay MUST
be non-deterministic, to support load balancing. The AMT gateway
operator MAY override this default choice with explicit configuration
when it's necessary for administrative purposes.
For example, one network might prefer to tunnel IPv6 multicast
traffic over IPv6 AMT and IPv4 multicast traffic over IPv4 AMT to
avoid routeability problems in IPv6 from affecting IPv4 traffic and
vice versa, while another network might prefer to tunnel both kinds
of traffic over IPv6 to reduce the IPv4 space used by its AMT
gateways. In this example scenario or other cases where there is an
administrative preference that requires explicit configuration, a
receiving network MAY make systematically different precedence
choices among records with the same precedence value.
4.2.2. RData Format - Discovery Optional (D-bit)
The D bit is a "Discovery Optional" flag.
If the D bit is set to 0, a gateway using this RR MUST perform AMT
relay discovery as described in Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC7450], rather
than directly sending an AMT request message to the relay.
That is, the gateway MUST receive an AMT relay advertisement message
(Section 5.1.2 of [RFC7450]) for an address before sending an AMT
request message (Section 5.1.3 of [RFC7450]) to that address. Before
receiving the relay advertisement message, this record has only
indicated that the address can be used for AMT relay discovery, not
for a request message. This is necessary for devices that are not
fully functional AMT relays, but rather load balancers or brokers, as
mentioned in Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC7450].
If the D bit is set to 1, the gateway MAY send an AMT request message
directly to the discovered relay address without first sending an AMT
discovery message.
This bit should be set according to advice from the AMT relay
operator. The D bit MUST be set to zero when no information is
available from the AMT relay operator about its suitability.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
4.2.3. RData Format - Type
The type field indicates the format of the information that is stored
in the relay field.
The following values are defined:
o type = 0: The relay field is empty (0 bytes).
o type = 1: The relay field contains a 4-octet IPv4 address.
o type = 2: The relay field contains a 16-octet IPv6 address.
o type = 3: The relay field contains a wire-encoded domain name.
The wire-encoded format is self-describing, so the length is
implicit. The domain name MUST NOT be compressed. (See
Section 3.3 of [RFC1035] and Section 4 of [RFC3597].)
4.2.4. RData Format - Relay
The relay field is the address or domain name of the AMT relay. It
is formatted according to the type field.
When the type field is 0, the length of the relay field is 0, and it
indicates that no AMT relay should be used for multicast traffic from
this source.
When the type field is 1, the length of the relay field is 4 octets,
and a 32-bit IPv4 address is present. This is an IPv4 address as
described in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC1035]. This is a 32-bit number in
network byte order.
When the type field is 2, the length of the relay field is 16 octets,
and a 128-bit IPv6 address is present. This is an IPv6 address as
described in Section 2.2 of [RFC3596]. This is a 128-bit number in
network byte order.
When the type field is 3, the relay field is a normal wire-encoded
domain name, as described in Section 3.3 of [RFC1035]. Compression
MUST NOT be used, for the reasons given in Section 4 of [RFC3597].
4.3. AMTRELAY Record Presentation Format
4.3.1. Representation of AMTRELAY RRs
AMTRELAY RRs may appear in a zone data master file. The precedence,
D-bit, relay type, and relay fields are REQUIRED.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
If the relay type field is 0, the relay field MUST be ".".
The presentation for the record is as follows:
IN AMTRELAY precedence D-bit type relay
4.3.2. Examples
In a DNS authoritative nameserver that understands the AMTRELAY type,
the zone might contain a set of entries like this:
$ORIGIN 100.51.198.in-addr.arpa.
10 IN AMTRELAY 10 0 1 203.0.113.15
10 IN AMTRELAY 10 0 2 2001:DB8::15
10 IN AMTRELAY 128 1 3 amtrelays.example.com.
This configuration advertises an IPv4 discovery address, an IPv6
discovery address, and a domain name for AMT relays which can receive
traffic from the source 198.51.100.10. The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
are configured with a D-bit of 0 (meaning discovery is mandatory, as
described in Section 4.2.2), and a precedence 10 (meaning they're
preferred ahead of the last entry, which has precedence 128).
For zone files in name servers that don't support the AMTRELAY RRType
natively, it's possible to use the format for unknown RR types, as
described in [RFC3597]. This approach would replace the AMTRELAY
entries in the example above with the entries below:
[To be removed (TBD): replace 65280 with the IANA-assigned value
TBD1, here and in Appendix B. ]
10 IN TYPE65280 \# (
6 ; length
0a ; precedence=10
01 ; D=0, relay type=1, an IPv4 address
cb00710f ) ; 203.0.113.15
10 IN TYPE65280 \# (
18 ; length
0a ; precedence=10
02 ; D=0, relay type=2, an IPv6 address
20010db800000000000000000000000f ) ; 2001:db8::15
10 IN TYPE65280 \# (
24 ; length
80 ; precedence=128
83 ; D=1, relay type=3, a wire-encoded domain name
09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d ) ; domain name
See Appendix B for more details.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
5. IANA Considerations
This document updates the IANA Registry for DNS Resource Record Types
by assigning type TBD1 to the AMTRELAY record.
This document creates a new registry named "AMTRELAY Resource Record
Parameters", with a sub-registry for the "Relay Type Field". The
initial values in the sub-registry are:
+-------+---------------------------------------+
| Value | Description |
+-------+---------------------------------------+
| 0 | No relay is present. |
| 1 | A 4-byte IPv4 address is present |
| 2 | A 16-byte IPv6 address is present |
| 3 | A wire-encoded domain name is present |
| 4-255 | Unassigned |
+-------+---------------------------------------+
Values 0, 1, 2, and 3 are further explained in Section 4.2.3 and
Section 4.2.4. Relay type numbers 4 through 255 can be assigned with
a policy of Specification Required (as described in [RFC8126]).
6. Security Considerations
[ TBD: these 3 are just the first few most obvious issues, with just
sketches of the problem. Explain better, and look for trickier
issues. ]
6.1. Record-spoofing
If AMT is used to ingest multicast traffic, providing a false
AMTRELAY record to a gateway using it for discovery can result in
Denial of Service, or artificial multicast traffic from a source
under an attacker's control.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that the AMTRELAY record is
authentic, with DNSSEC [RFC4033] or other operational safeguards that
can provide assurance of the authenticity of the record contents.
6.2. Local Override
The local relays, while important for overall network performance,
can't be secured by DNSSEC.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
6.3. Congestion
Multicast traffic, particularly interdomain multicast traffic,
carries some congestion risks, as described in Section 4 of
[RFC8085]. Network operators are advised to take precautions
including monitoring of application traffic behavior, traffic
authentication, and rate-limiting of multicast traffic, in order to
ensure network health.
7. Acknowledgements
This specification was inspired by the previous work of Doug Nortz,
Robert Sayko, David Segelstein, and Percy Tarapore, presented in the
MBONED working group at IETF 93.
Thanks to Jeff Goldsmith, Toerless Eckert, Mikael Abrahamsson, Lenny
Giuliano, and Mark Andrews for their very helpful comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[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>.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.
[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>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC7450] Bumgardner, G., "Automatic Multicast Tunneling", RFC 7450,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7450, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7450>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2317] Eidnes, H., de Groot, G., and P. Vixie, "Classless IN-
ADDR.ARPA delegation", BCP 20, RFC 2317,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2317, March 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2317>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
[RFC4025] Richardson, M., "A Method for Storing IPsec Keying
Material in DNS", RFC 4025, DOI 10.17487/RFC4025, March
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4025>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC5110] Savola, P., "Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing
Architecture", RFC 5110, DOI 10.17487/RFC5110, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5110>.
[RFC5507] IAB, Faltstrom, P., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and P. Koch,
Ed., "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5507, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5507>.
[RFC6726] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.
[RFC6895] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 6895, DOI 10.17487/RFC6895,
April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895>.
[RFC7359] Gont, F., "Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Tunnel
Traffic Leakages in Dual-Stack Hosts/Networks", RFC 7359,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7359, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7359>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8313] Tarapore, P., Ed., Sayko, R., Shepherd, G., Eckert, T.,
Ed., and R. Krishnan, "Use of Multicast across Inter-
domain Peering Points", BCP 213, RFC 8313,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8313, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8313>.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
Appendix A. New RRType Request Form
This is the template for requesting a new RRType recommended in
Appendix A of [RFC6895].
A. Submission Date:
B.1 Submission Type:
[x] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
B.2 Kind of RR:
[x] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR
C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):
Name: Jake Holland
Email Address: jakeholland.net@gmail.com
International telephone number: +1-626-486-3706
Other contact handles: jholland@akamai.com
D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.
It provides a bootstrap so AMT (RFC 7450) gateways can discover
an AMT relay that can receive multicast traffic from a specific source,
in order to signal multicast group membership and receive multicast
traffic over a unicast tunnel using AMT.
E. Description of the proposed RR type.
This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
attachment, or with a publicly available URL.
Please see draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery.
F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
and why are they unsatisfactory?
Some similar concepts appear in IPSECKEY, as described in
Section 1.2 of [RFC4025]. The IPSECKEY RRType is unsatisfactory
because it refers to IPSec Keys instead of to AMT relays, but
the motivating considerations for using reverse IP and for
providing a precedence are similar--an AMT gateway often
has access to a source address for a multicast (S,G), but does
not have access to a relay address that can receive multicast
traffic from the source, without administrative configuration.
Defining a format for a TXT record could serve the need for AMT
relay discovery semantics, but Section 5 of [RFC5507] provides a
compelling argument for requesting a new RRType instead.
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
AMTRELAY
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS
Parameters?
Yes, IANA is requested to create a subregistry named "AMT Relay
Type Field" in a "AMTRELAY Resource Record Parameters" registry.
The field values are defined in Section 4.2.3 and Section 4.2.4,
and a summary table is given in Section 5.
I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
as an unknown RRTYPE (see RFC3597)?
No.
J. Comments:
It may be worth noting that the gateway type field from Section 2.3 of
[RFC4025] and Section 2.5 of [RFC4025] is very similar to the
Relay Type field in this request. I tentatively assume that trying to
re-use that sub-registry is a worse idea than duplicating it, but I'll
invite others to consider the question and voice an opinion, in case
there is a different consensus.
https://www.ietf.org/assignments/
ipseckey-rr-parameters/ipseckey-rr-parameters.xml
Appendix B. Unknown RRType construction
In a DNS resolver that understands the AMTRELAY type, the zone file
might contain this line:
IN AMTRELAY 128 0 3 amtrelays.example.com.
In order to translate this example to appear as an unknown RRType as
defined in [RFC3597], one could run the following program:
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DRIAD January 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
$ cat translate.py
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import sys
name=sys.argv[1]
wire=''
for dn in name.split('.'):
if len(dn) > 0:
wire += ('%02x' % len(dn))
wire += (''.join('%02x'%ord(x) for x in dn))
print(len(wire)//2)
print(wire)
$ ./translate.py amtrelays.example.com
22
09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d
<CODE ENDS>
The length and the hex string for the domain name
"amtrelays.example.com" are the outputs of this program, yielding a
length of 22 and the above hex string.
22 is the length of the wire-encoded domain name, so to this we add 2
(1 for the precedence field and 1 for the combined D-bit and relay
type fields) to get the full length of the RData.
This results in a zone file entry like this:
IN TYPE65280 \# ( 24 ; length
80 ; precedence = 128
03 ; D-bit=0, relay type=3 (wire-encoded domain name)
09616d7472656c617973076578616d706c6503636f6d ) ; domain name
Author's Address
Jake Holland
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
150 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02144
United States of America
Email: jakeholland.net@gmail.com
Holland Expires July 29, 2019 [Page 30]
