Internet-Draft PIM Join Attributes for LISP Mcast September 2024
Govindan & Venaas Expires 18 March 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Internet Engineering Task Force
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-06
Updates:
8059 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Experimental
Expires:
Authors:
V. Govindan
Cisco
S. Venaas
Cisco

PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast

Abstract

This document specifies an update to the PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune attribute that supports the construction of multicast distribution trees where the source and receivers are located in different Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) sites and are connected using underlay IP Multicast. This attribute allows the receiver site to signal the underlay multicast group to the control plane of the root Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR).

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 18 March 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and receivers are located in different LISP sites [RFC9300] is defined in [RFC6831].

[RFC6831] specifies that (root-EID, G) data packets are to be LISP- encapsulated into (root-RLOC, G) multicast packets. [RFC8059] defines PIM Join/Prune attribute extensions to construct multicast distribution trees. Please refer to Section 3 of [RFC6831] for the definition of the terms EID and RLOC. We use the term root-EID or root-RLOC to refer to the source of the multicast tree rooted at the EID or RLOC. This document extends the Receiver ETR RLOC PIM Join/Prune attribute [RFC8059] to facilitate the construction of underlay multicast trees for (root-RLOC, G).

Specifically, the assignment of the underlay multicast group needs to be done in consonance with the downstream xTR nodes and avoid unnecessary replication or traffic hairpinning.

Since the Receiver RLOC Attribute defined in [RFC8059] only addresses the Ingress Replication case, an extension of the scope of that PIM Join/Prune attribute is defined by this draft to include scenarios where the underlay uses Multicast transport. The scope extension proposed here complies with the base specification [RFC5384].

This document uses terminology defined in [RFC9300], such as EID, RLOC, ITR, and ETR.

1.1. Requirements Language

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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. The case for extending the Received ETR RLOC Attribute of RFC 8059

When LISP based Multicast trees are constructed using IP Multicast in the underlay, the mapping between the overlay group address and the underlay group address becomes a very crucial engineering decision:

Flexible mapping of overlay to underlay group ranges:
Three distinct types of overlay to underlay group mappings are possible: Many to one mapping: Many (root-EID, G) flows originating from a RLOC can be mapped to a single underlay (root-RLOC, G-u) flow. One to many mapping: Conversely a single same overlay flow can be mapped to two or more flows e.g. (root-RLOC, G-u1) and (root-RLOC, G-u2) to cater to the requirements of downstream xTR nodes. One to one mapping: Every (root-EID, G) flow is mapped to a unique (root-RLOC, G-u) flow.
Multicast Address Range constraints:
Under certain conditions, different subsets of xTRs subscribing to the same overlay multicast stream may be constrained to use distinct underlay multicast mapping ranges. This introduces a trade-off between replication overhead and the flexibility of address range assignment, which may be necessary in specific scenarios outlined below
Inter-site Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTR):
When multiple LISP sites are interconnected through a LISP-based transit, the site border node (PxTR) connects the site-facing interfaces with the external LISP core. In such cases, different ranges of multicast group addresses may be used for constructing (S-RLOC, G) trees within the LISP site and in the external LISP core. This distinction is desirable for various operational reasons
Hardware resource restrictions:
Platform limitations may necessitate engineering decisions to restrict multicast address ranges in the underlay due to hardware resource constraints.

3. Updates to RFC 8059

3.1. Scope

No changes are proposed to the syntax or semantics of the Transport Attribute defined in RFC8059 [RFC8059].

The scope of the updates to RFC 8059 [RFC8059] is limited to the case where the "Transport" field of the Transport Attribute is set to zero (Multicast) only.

3.2. Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute

The definition of the "Receiver RLOC" field of the Receiver ETR RLOC attribute RFC 8059 [RFC8059] is updated as follows:

Receiver RLOC:
The Receiver RLOC field of the Receiver RLOC Attribute MAY contain a multicast IP address. This field MUST be used only when the underlay network of the LISP core supports IP Multicast transport.

The definitions of the other fields of the Receiver ETR RLOC Attribute remain unchanged.

When the ITR needs to track the list of ETRs from which the PIM joins are received, the ITR MUST use the source IP address field of the incoming PIM Join/Prune message. The source IP of the PIM Join/Prune MUST be an ETR RLOC IP address.

3.3. Using the Receiver RLOC Attribute

When the ETR determines to use the multicast underlay:

When the ITR receives a PIM Join/Prune message:

4. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dino Farinacci, Victor Moreno, Alvaro Retana and Aswin Kuppusami for their valuable comments. The authors also thank Sankaralingam T and Amit Kumar for their contributions to the document. The authors thank Gunter van de Velde for his valuable comments.

5. IANA Considerations

No new requests to IANA.

6. Security Considerations

An attack vector arises where an attacker sends numerous PIM Join messages with different group addresses. This could interfere with legitimate multicast traffic if the group addresses overlap. Additionally, resource exhaustion may occur if replication is requested for a large number of groups, potentially resulting in significant resource consumption. To mitigate these risks, PIM authentication mechanisms could be employed to validate join requests. Furthermore, implementations may consider explicit tracking mechanisms to manage joins more effectively. Configurable controls could be introduced, allowing for a maximum permissible number of groups for each ETR RLOC used as the source of overlay joins. These controls would limit the impact of such attacks and ensure that resource allocation is managed appropriately.

7. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5384]
Boers, A., Wijnands, I., and E. Rosen, "The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Join Attribute Format", RFC 5384, DOI 10.17487/RFC5384, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5384>.
[RFC6831]
Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC8059]
Arango, J., Venaas, S., Kouvelas, I., and D. Farinacci, "PIM Join Attributes for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments", RFC 8059, DOI 10.17487/RFC8059, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8059>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9300]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.

Authors' Addresses

Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco
Stig Venaas
Cisco