From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a0522ff --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4602.txt @@ -0,0 +1,451 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group T. Pusateri +Request for Comments: 4602 Juniper Networks +Category: Informational August 2006 + + + Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) + IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + +Abstract + + This document provides supporting documentation to advance the + Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing + protocol from IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................2 + 2. RFC 1264 Requirements ...........................................2 + 2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage ............2 + 2.2. Management Information Base ................................2 + 2.3. Explicit Security Architecture .............................2 + 2.4. Implementation Existence ...................................3 + 2.4.1. XORP ................................................3 + 2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX .......................................3 + 2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. ..........................3 + 2.4.4. Procket Networks ....................................3 + 2.5. Evidence of Testing ........................................4 + 2.5.1. Cisco ...............................................4 + 2.5.2. XORP ................................................4 + 2.5.3. Procket Networks ....................................5 + 2.6. Suitability ................................................5 + 2.7. Authentication Mechanisms ..................................5 + 3. Security Considerations .........................................5 + 4. Acknowledgements ................................................5 + 5. References ......................................................6 + 5.1. Normative References .......................................6 + 5.2. Informative References .....................................6 + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +1. Introduction + + This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the + Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing + protocol from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. + PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then + again as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as + Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol + specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more fully + specify the protocol. It is this new specification that is to be + advanced to Proposed Standard. + +2. RFC 1264 Requirements + + Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for + routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement + is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has + been satisfied. + +2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage + + The authors of the new PIM-SM specification [RFC4601] have taken + considerable care to fully specify the protocol operation. It + removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize corner cases + that existed in the previous specification. It has been used to + provide several interoperable implementations by developers that were + not authors of the specification. These implementations will be + described below. + +2.2. Management Information Base + + A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC + 2934 [RFC2934]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used + by network management applications for several years. Updates to + this MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation + experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF. + +2.3. Explicit Security Architecture + + The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive + security section explaining its security features and limitations. + Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is + provided for PIM protocol messages. + + + + + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +2.4. Implementation Existence + + There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new + protocol specification, and there are over 6 independent + implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the + specification. The new specification was carefully written to be + backward compatible with the old specification allowing + implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the + new specification. + + The 4 implementations of the new version are described below. + +2.4.1. XORP + + The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM + v2 as specified in RFC 4601. It was written by Pavlin Radoslavov + and has been available to the public since December + 2002. Pavlin is not an author of the protocol specification. It + does not use any other existing code as a base. + +2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX + + Cisco Systems, Inc., has written an implementation of the new + protocol specification that has been deployed in production routers. + There exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There exists an + IOX implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was initially + written by Isidor Kouvelas . It does not depend + on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of the protocol + specification. + +2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. + + Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com), has developed a limited + shared-tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification + including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM join/prune messages, + join suppression, and prune override. It was written by Bharat Joshi + and is used in commercial products. + Bharat is not an author of the protocol specification. + +2.4.4. Procket Networks + + An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by + Dino Farinacci . This implementation is now owned by + Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol + specification. + + + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +2.5. Evidence of Testing + +2.5.1. Cisco + + The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing + as well as testing in production deployments. It is found to + interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM + Sparse-Mode protocol specification. + +2.5.2. XORP + + The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested + internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has been + on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is + tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers. + The packet generators are used to generate messages such as IGMP and + PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data packets. The packet + observers are used to observe the PIM-SM control packets generated by + the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the data packets that + may be forwarded by that router. In addition, the router's command- + line interface has been used to observe its internal state during + some of the tests. + + The test scenarios have been designed to follow the protocol + specification closely (e.g., a separate test has been created for + each event in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test + scenarios are described in detail in the XORP PIM-SM Test Suite + [XORP-TEST]. + + The major tested features are: + + 1. Multicast data forwarding. + + 2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery, + option exchange, and DR election. + + 3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register + state machine, and multicast data packets encapsulation and + decapsulation. + + 4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages and + upstream and downstream protocol state machines. The tests + consider the following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G), and + (S,G,rpt). + + 5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per- + interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines. + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + + 6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception, and forwarding + of PIM Bootstrap messages (BSMs), transmission and reception of + PIM Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate Bootstrap + Router (BSR) state machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, + receiving and using the RP-Set, and semantic fragmentation of + BSMs. + + In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the + PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol + specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the + document. + +2.5.3. Procket Networks + + The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and + service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and + old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks + implementations. + +2.6. Suitability + + PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast + groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM + uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path + information for multicast tree building, but it is not dependent on + any particular unicast routing protocol. + +2.7. Authentication Mechanisms + + PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication + header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data + origin authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH + authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of + authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the + network administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged + PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of + the protocol specification. + +3. Security Considerations + + No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing + protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol. + +4. Acknowledgements + + Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing. + Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing. + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +5. References + +5.1. Normative References + + [RFC2934] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B. Fenner, + "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934, + October 2000. + + [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, + "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): + Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. + +5.2. Informative References + + [RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet + Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, + October 1991. + + [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., + Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, + P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse + Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June + 1997. + + [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., + Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, + P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse + Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June + 1998. + + [XORP] "XORP Project", . + + [XORP-TEST] "XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +Author's Address + + Tom Pusateri + Juniper Networks + 1194 North Mathilda Avenue + Sunnyvale, CA 94089 + USA + + Phone: +1 408 745 2000 + EMail: pusateri@juniper.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 4602 PIM-SM Proposed Standard Req. Analysis August 2006 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, + INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE + INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + + + +Pusateri Informational [Page 8] + -- cgit v1.2.3