| Internet-Draft | PIM Join Attributes for LISP Mcast | April 2023 |
| Govindan & Venaas | Expires 4 October 2023 | [Page] |
This document specifies an extension to PIM Receiver RLOC Join/ Prune attribute that supports the construction of multicast distribution trees where the root 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 ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router).¶
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 4 October 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
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 J/P attribute extensions to construct multicast distribution trees. This document extends the Receiver ETR RLOC PIM J/P 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 J/P 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.¶
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].¶
When LISP based Multicast trees can be built using IP Multicast in the underlay, the mapping between the overlay group address and the underlay group address becomes a very crucial engineering decision:¶
Editorial Note: Comments from Stig: There should be some text indicating that the group address used should ideally only be used for LISP encapsulation (if ASM), and perhaps that it is preferrable to use an SSM group. Also, that the group obviously must be a group that the underlay supports/allows. I think it is also worth noting that ideally, different ETRs should request the same group.¶
The authors would like to thank Dino Farinacci and Victor Moreno for their valuable comments.¶
No new requests to IANA¶
There is perhaps a new attack vector where an attacker can send a bunch of joins with different group addresses. It may interfere with other multicast traffic if those group addresses overlap. Also, it may take up a lot of resources if replication for thousands of groups are requested. However PIM authentication (?) should come to the rescue here. TBD Since explicit tracking would be done, perhaps it is worth enforcing that for each ETR RLOC (the RLOC used as the source of the overlay join), there could be a configurable number of maximum permissible group(s). TBD¶
Ed Note: To be addressed - Comments from Stig: Regarding security considerations and PIM authentication. The only solution we have here is to use IP-Sec to sign the J/P messages. I dont know if anyone has tried to us IPSec between LISP RLOCs. Are there any LISP security mechanisms that would help here for authenticating LISP encapsulated messages between xTRs?¶