Network Working Group A. Ballardie Request for Comments: 2189 Consultant Category: Experimental September 1997
Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
- - Protocol Specification –
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document describes the Core Based Tree (CBT version 2) network layer multicast routing protocol. CBT builds a shared multicast distribution tree per group, and is suited to inter- and intra-domain multicast routing.
CBT may use a separate multicast routing table, or it may use that of underlying unicast routing, to establish paths between senders and receivers. The CBT architecture is described in .
This document is progressing through the IDMR working group of the IETF. CBT related documents include [1, 5, 6]. For all IDMR-related documents, see http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/ietf/idmr.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Changes Since Previous version............................. 2 2. Introduction & Terminology................................. 3 3. CBT Functional Overview.................................... 3 4. CBT Protocol Specificiation Details........................ 6 4.1 CBT HELLO Protocol..................................... 6 4.1.1 Sending HELLOs................................... 7 4.1.2 Receiving HELLOs................................. 7 4.2 JOIN_REQUEST Processing................................ 8 4.2.1 Sending JOIN_REQUESTs............................ 8 4.2.2 Receiving JOIN_REQUESTs.......................... 8 4.3 JOIN_ACK Processing.................................... 9 4.3.1 Sending JOIN_ACKs................................ 9 4.3.2 Receiving JOIN_ACKs.............................. 9
Ballardie Experimental [Page 1] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
4.4 QUIT_NOTIFICATION Processing........................... 10 4.4.1 Sending QUIT_NOTIFICATIONs....................... 10 4.4.2 Receiving QUIT_NOTIFICATIONs..................... 10 4.5 CBT ECHO_REQUEST Processing............................ 11 4.5.1 Sending ECHO_REQUESTs............................ 11 4.5.2 Receiving ECHO_REQUESTs.......................... 12 4.6 ECHO_REPLY Processing.................................. 12 4.6.1 Sending ECHO_REPLYs.............................. 12 4.6.2 Receiving ECHO_REPLYs............................ 12 4.7 FLUSH_TREE Processing.................................. 13 4.7.1 Sending FLUSH_TREE Messages...................... 13 4.7.2 Receiving FLUSH_TREE Messages.................... 13 5. Non-Member Sending......................................... 13 6. Timers and Default Values.................................. 13 7. CBT Packet Formats and Message Types....................... 14 7.1 CBT Common Control Packet Header....................... 14 7.2 HELLO Packet Format.................................... 15 7.3 JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format............................. 16 7.4 JOIN_ACK Packet Format................................. 16 7.5 QUIT_NOTIFICATION Packet Format........................ 17 7.6 ECHO_REQUEST Packet Format............................. 18 7.7 ECHO_REPLY Packet Format............................... 18 7.8 FLUSH_TREE Packet Format............................... 19 8. Core Router Discovery...................................... 19 8.1 "Bootstrap" Mechanism Overview........................ 20 8.2 Bootstrap Message Format.............................. 21 8.3 Candidate Core Advertisement Message Format........... 21 9. Interoperability Issues.................................... 21 10. Security Considerations.................................. 21 Acknowledgements.............................................. 22 References.................................................... 22 Author Information............................................ 23
1. Changes from CBT version 1
This version of the CBT protocol specification differs significantly from the previous version. Consequently, this version represents version 2 of the CBT protocol. CBT version 2 is not, and was not, intended to be backwards compatible with version 1; we do not expect this to cause extensive compatibility problems because we do not believe CBT is at all widely deployed at this stage. However, any future versions of CBT can be expected to be backwards compatible with this version.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 2] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
The most significant changes to version 2 compared to version 1 include:
o new LAN mechanisms, including the incorporation of an HELLO protocol.
o new simplified packet formats, with the definition of a common CBT control packet header.
o each group shared tree has only one active core router.
This specification revision is a complete re-write of the previous revision.
2. Introduction & Terminology
In CBT, a "core router" (or just "core") is a router which acts as a "meeting point" between a sender and group receivers. The term "rendezvous point (RP)" is used equivalently in some contexts . A core router need not be configured to know it is a core router.
A router that is part of a CBT distribution tree is known as an "on- tree" router. An on-tree router maintains active state for the group.
We refer to a broadcast interface as any interface that supports multicast transmission.
An "upstream" interface (or router) is one which is on the path towards the group's core router with respect to this interface (or router). A "downstream" interface (or router) is one which is on the path away from the group's core router with respect to this interface (or router).
Other terminology is introduced in its context throughout the text.
3. CBT Functional Overview
The CBT protocol is designed to build and maintain a shared multicast distribution tree that spans only those networks and links leading to interested receivers.
To achieve this, a host first expresses its interest in joining a group by multicasting an IGMP host membership report  across its attached link. On receiving this report, a local CBT aware router invokes the tree joining process (unless it has already) by generating a JOIN_REQUEST message, which is sent to the next hop on the path towards the group's core router (how the local router discovers which core to join is discussed in section 8). This join
Ballardie Experimental [Page 3] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
message must be explicitly acknowledged (JOIN_ACK) either by the core router itself, or by another router that is on the path between the sending router and the core, which itself has already successfully joined the tree.
The join message sets up transient join state in the routers it traverses, and this state consists of <group, incoming interface, outgoing interface>. "Incoming interface" and "outgoing interface" may be "previous hop" and "next hop", respectively, if the corresponding links do not support multicast transmission. "Previous hop" is taken from the incoming control packet's IP source address, and "next hop" is gleaned from the routing table - the next hop to the specified core address. This transient state eventually times out unless it is "confirmed" with a join acknowledgement (JOIN_ACK) from upstream. The JOIN_ACK traverses the reverse path of the corresponding join message, which is possible due to the presence of the transient join state. Once the acknowledgement reaches the router that originated the join message, the new receiver can receive traffic sent to the group.
Loops cannot be created in a CBT tree because a) there is only one active core per group, and b) tree building/maintenance scenarios which may lead to the creation of tree loops are avoided. For example, if a router's upstream neighbour becomes unreachable, the router immediately "flushes" all of its downstream branches, allowing them to individually rejoin if necessary. Transient unicast loops do not pose a threat because a new join message that loops back on itself will never get acknowledged, and thus eventually times out.
The state created in routers by the sending or receiving of a JOIN_ACK is bi-directional - data can flow either way along a tree "branch", and the state is group specific - it consists of the group address and a list of local interfaces over which join messages for the group have previously been acknowledged. There is no concept of "incoming" or "outgoing" interfaces, though it is necessary to be able to distinguish the upstream interface from any downstream interfaces. In CBT, these interfaces are known as the "parent" and "child" interfaces, respectively. A router is not considered "on- tree" until it has received a JOIN_ACK for a previously sent JOIN_REQUEST.
With regards to the information contained in the multicast forwarding cache, on link types not supporting native multicast transmission an on-tree router must store the address of a parent and any children. On links supporting multicast however, parent and any child information is represented with local interface addresses (or similar identifying information, such as an interface "index") over which the parent or child is reachable.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 4] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
Data from non-member senders must be encapsulated (IP-in-IP) by the first-hop router, and is unicast to the group's core router. Consequently, no group state is required in the network between the first hop router and the group's core. On arriving at the core router, the data packet's outer encapsulating header is removed and the packet is disemminated over the group shared tree as described below.
When a multicast data packet arrives at a router, the router uses the group address as an index into the multicast forwarding cache. A copy of the incoming multicast data packet is forwarded over each interface (or to each address) listed in the entry except the incoming interface.
Each router that comprises a CBT multicast tree, except the core router, is responsible for maintaining its upstream link, provided it has interested downstream receivers, i.e. the child interface list is not NULL. A child interface is one over which a member host is directly attached, or one over which a downstream on-tree router is attached. This "tree maintenance" is achieved by each downstream router periodically sending a CBT "keepalive" message (ECHO_REQUEST) to its upstream neighbour, i.e. its parent router on the tree. One keepalive message is sent to represent entries with the same parent, thereby improving scalability on links which are shared by many groups. On multicast capable links, a keepalive is multicast to the "all-cbt-routers" group (IANA assigned as 220.127.116.11); this has a suppressing effect on any other router for which the link is its parent link. If a parent link does not support multicast transmission, keepalives are unicast.
The receipt of a keepalive message over a valid child interface prompts a response (ECHO_REPLY), which is either unicast or multicast, as appropriate. The ECHO_REPLY message carries a list of groups for which the corresponding interface is a child interface.
It cannot be assumed all of the routers on a multi-access link have a uniform view of unicast routing; this is particularly the case when a multi-access link spans two or more unicast routing domains. This could lead to multiple upstream tree branches being formed (an error condition) unless steps are taken to ensure all routers on the link agree which is the upstream router for a particular group. CBT routers attached to a multi-access link participate in an explicit election mechanism that elects a single router, the designated router (DR), as the link's upstream router for all groups. Since the DR might not be the link's best next-hop for a particular core router, this may result in join messages being re-directed back across a multi-access link. If this happens, the re-directed join message is unicast across the link by the DR to the best next-hop, thereby
Ballardie Experimental [Page 5] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
preventing a looping scenario. This re-direction only ever applies to join messages. Whilst this is suboptimal for join messages, which are generated infrequently, multicast data never traverses a link more than once (either natively, or encapsulated).
In all but the exception case described above, all CBT control messages are multicast over multicast supporting links to the "all- cbt- routers" group, with IP TTL 1. The IP source address of CBT control messages is the outgoing interface of the sending router. The IP destination address of CBT control messages is either the "all- cbt- routers" group address, or a unicast address, as appropriate. All the necessary addressing information is obtained by on-tree routers as part of tree set up.
If CBT is implemented over a tunnelled topology, when sending a CBT control packet over a tunnel interface, the sending router uses as the packet's IP source address the local tunnel end point address, and the remote tunnel end point address as the packet's IP destination address.
4. Protocol Specification Details
Details of the CBT protocol are presented in the context of a single router implementation.
4.1. CBT HELLO Protocol
The HELLO protocol is used to elect a designated router (DR) on broadcast-type links. It is also used to elect a designated border router (BR) when interconnecting a CBT domain with other domains (see ). Alternatively, the designated BR may be elected as a matter of local policy.
A router represents its status as a link's DR by setting the DR-flag on that interface; a DR flag is associated with each of a router's broadcast interfaces. This flag can only assume one of two values: TRUE or FALSE. By default, this flag is FALSE.
A network manager can preference a router's DR eligibility by optionally configuring an HELLO preference, which is included in the router's HELLO messages. Valid configuration values range from 1 to 254 (decimal), 1 representing the "most eligible" value. In the absence of explicit configuration, a router assumes the default HELLO preference value of 255. The elected DR uses HELLO preference zero (0) in HELLO advertisements, irrespective of any configured preference. The DR continues to use preference zero for as long as it is running.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 6] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
HELLO messages are multicast periodically to the all-cbt-routers group, 18.104.22.168, using IP TTL 1. The advertisement period is [HELLO_INTERVAL] seconds.
HELLO messages have a suppressing effect on those routers which would advertise a "lesser preference" in their HELLO messages; a router resets its [HELLO_INTERVAL] if the received HELLO is "better" than its own. Thus, in steady state, the HELLO protocol incurs very little traffic overhead.
The DR election winner is that which advertises the lowest HELLO preference, or the lowest-addressed in the event of a tie.
The situation where two or more routers attached to the same broadcast link areadvertising HELLO preference 0 should never arise. However, should this situation arise, all but the lowest addressed zero advertising router relinquishes its claim as DR immediately by unsetting the DR flag on the corresponding interface. The relinquishing router(s) subsequently advertise their previously used preference value in HELLO advertisements.
4.1.1. Sending HELLOs
When a router starts up, it multicasts two HELLO messages over each of its broadcast interfaces in successsion. The DR flag is initially unset (FALSE) on each broadcast interface. This avoids the situation in which each router on a multi-access subnet believes it is the DR, thus preventing the multiple forwarding of join-requests should they arrive during this start up period. If no "better" HELLO message is received after HOLDTIME seconds, the router assumes the role of DR on the corresponding interface.
A router sends an HELLO message whenever its [HELLO_INTERVAL] expires. Whenever a router sends an HELLO message, it resets its hello timer.
4.1.2. Receiving HELLOs
A router does not respond to an HELLO message if the received HELLO is "better" than its own, or equally preferenced but lower addressed.
A router must respond to an HELLO message if that received is lesser preferenced (or equally preferenced but higher addressed) than would be sent by this router over the same interface. This response is sent on expiry of an interval timer which is set between zero (0) and [HOLDTIME] seconds when the lesser preferenced HELLO message is received.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 7] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
4.2. JOIN_REQUEST Processing
A JOIN_REQUEST is the CBT control message used to register a member host's interest in joining the distribution tree for the group.
4.2.1. Sending JOIN_REQUESTs
A JOIN_REQUEST can only ever be originated by a leaf router, i.e. a router with directly attached member hosts. This join message is sent hop-by-hop towards the core router for the group (see section 8). The originating router caches <group, NULL, upstream interface> state for each join it originates. This state is known as "transient join state". The absence of a "downstream interface" (NULL) indicates that this router is the join message originator, and is therefore responsible for any retransmissions of this message if a response is not received within [RTX_INTERVAL]. It is an error if no response is received after [JOIN_TIMEOUT] seconds. If this error condition occurs, the joining process may be re-invoked by the receipt of the next IGMP host membership report from a locally attached member host.
Note that if the interface over which a JOIN_REQUEST is to be sent supports multicast, the JOIN_REQUEST is multicast to the all-cbt- routers group, using IP TTL 1. If the link does not support multicast, the JOIN_REQUEST is unicast to the next hop on the unicast path to the group's core.
4.2.2. Receiving JOIN_REQUESTs
On broadcast links, JOIN_REQUESTs which are multicast may only be forwarded by the link's DR. Other routers attached to the link may process the join (see below). JOIN_REQUESTs which are multicast over a point-to-point link are only processed by the router on the link which does not have a local interface corresponding to the join's network layer (IP) source address. Unicast JOIN_REQUESTs may only be processed by the router which has a local interface corresponding to the join's network layer (IP) destination address.
With regard to forwarding a received JOIN_REQUEST, if the receiving router is not on-tree for the group, and is not the group's core router, and has not already forwarded a join for the same group, the join is forwarded to the next hop on the path towards the core. The join is multicast, or unicast, according to whether the outgoing interface supports multicast. The router caches the following information with respect to the forwarded join: <group, downstream interface, upstream interface>. Subsequent JOIN_REQUESTs received for the same group are cached until this router has received a JOIN_ACK for the previously sent join, at which time any cached joins can also be acknowledged.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 8] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
If this transient join state is not "confirmed" with a join acknowledgement (JOIN_ACK) message from upstream, the state is timed out after [TRANSIENT_TIMEOUT] seconds.
If the receiving router is the group's core router, the join is "terminated" and acknowledged by means of a JOIN_ACK. Similarly, if the router is on-tree and the JOIN_REQUEST arrives over an interface that is not the upstream interface for the group, the join is acknowledged.
If a JOIN_REQUEST for the same group is scheduled to be sent over the corresponding interface (i.e. awaiting a timer expiry), the JOIN_REQUEST is unscheduled.
If this router has a cache-deletion-timer [CACHE_DEL_TIMER] running on the arrival interface for the group specified in a multicast join, the timer is cancelled.
4.3. JOIN_ACK Processing
A JOIN_ACK is the mechanism by which an interface is added to a router's multicast forwarding cache; thus, the interface becomes part of the group distribution tree.
4.3.1. Sending JOIN_ACKs
The JOIN_ACK is sent over the same interface as the corresponding JOIN_REQUEST was received. The sending of the acknowledgement causes the router to add the interface to its child interface list in its forwarding cache for the group, if it is not already.
A JOIN_ACK is multicast or unicast, according to whether the outgoing interface supports multicast transmission or not.
4.3.2. Receiving JOIN_ACKs
The group and arrival interface must be matched to a <group, ...., upstream interface> from the router's cached transient state. If no match is found, the JOIN_ACK is discarded. If a match is found, a CBT forwarding cache entry for the group is created, with "upstream interface" marked as the group's parent interface.
If "downstream interface" in the cached transient state is NULL, the JOIN_ACK has reached the originator of the corresponding JOIN_REQUEST; the JOIN_ACK is not forwarded downstream. If "downstream interface" is non-NULL, a JOIN_ACK for the group is sent
Ballardie Experimental [Page 9] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
over the "downstream interface" (multicast or unicast, accordingly). This interface is installed in the child interface list of the group's forwarding cache entry.
Once transient state has been confirmed by transferring it to the forwarding cache, the transient state is deleted.
4.4. QUIT_NOTIFICATION Processing
A CBT tree is "pruned" in the direction downstream-to-upstream whenever a CBT router's child interface list for a group becomes NULL.
4.4.1. Sending QUIT_NOTIFICATIONs
A QUIT_NOTIFICATION is sent to a router's parent router on the tree whenever the router's child interface list becomes NULL. If the link over which the quit is to be sent supports multicast transmission, if the sending router is the link's DR the quit is unicast, otherwise it is multicast.
A QUIT_NOTIFICATION is not acknowledged; once sent, all information pertaining to the group it represents is deleted from the forwarding cache immediately.
To help ensure consistency between a child and parent router given the potential for loss of a QUIT_NOTIFICATION, a total of [MAX_RTX] QUIT_NOTIFICATIONs are sent, each HOLDTIME seconds after the previous one.
The sending of a quit (the first) also invokes the sending of a FLUSH_TREE message over each downstream interface for the corresponding group.
4.4.2. Receiving QUIT_NOTIFICATIONs
The group reported in the QUIT_NOTIFICATION must be matched with a forwarding cache entry. If no match is found, the QUIT_NOTIFICATION is ignored and discarded. If a match is found, if the arrival interface is a valid child interface in the group entry, how the router proceeds depends on whether the QUIT_NOTIFICATION was multicast or unicast.
If the QUIT_NOTIFICATION was unicast, the corresponding child interface is deleted from the group's forwarding cache entry, and no further processing is required.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 10] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
If the QUIT_NOTIFICATION was multicast, and the arrival interface is a valid child interface for the specified group, the router sets a cache-deletion-timer [CACHE_DEL_TIMER].
Because this router might be acting as a parent router for multiple downstream routers attached to the arrival link, [CACHE_DEL_TIMER] interval gives those routers that did not send the QUIT_NOTIFICA- TION, but received it over their parent interface, the opportunity to ensure that the parent router does not remove the link from its child interface list. Therefore, on receipt of a multicast QUIT_NOTIFICATION over a parent interface, a receiving router schedules a JOIN_REQUEST for the group for sending at a random interval between 0 (zero) and HOLDTIME seconds. If a multicast JOIN_REQUEST is received over the corresponding interface (parent) for the same group before this router sends its own scheduled JOIN_REQUEST, it unschedules the multicasting of its own JOIN_REQUEST.
4.5. ECHO_REQUEST Processing
The ECHO_REQUEST message allows a child to monitor reachability to its parent router for a group (or range of groups if the parent router is the parent for multiple groups). Group information is not carried in ECHO_REQUEST messages.
4.5.1. Sending ECHO_REQUESTs
Whenever a router creates a forwarding cache entry due to the receipt of a JOIN_ACK, the router begins the periodic sending of ECHO_REQUEST messages over its parent interface. The ECHO_REQUEST is multicast to the "all-cbt-routers" group over multicast-capable interfaces, unless the sending router is the DR on the interface over which the ECHO_REQUEST is being sent, in which case it is unicast (as is the corresponding ECHO_REPLY).
ECHO_REQUEST messages are sent at [ECHO_INTERVAL] second intervals.
Whenever an ECHO_REQUEST is sent, [ECHO_INTERVAL] is reset.
If no response is forthcoming, any groups present on the parent interface will eventually expire [GROUP_EXPIRE_TIME]. This results in the sending of a QUIT_NOTIFICATION upstream, and sends a FLUSH_TREE message downstream for each group for which the upstream interface was the parent interface.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 11] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
4.5.2. Receiving ECHO_REQUESTs
If an ECHO_REQUEST is received over any valid child interface, the receiving router schedules an ECHO_REPLY message for sending over the same interface; the scheduled interval is between 0 (zero) and HOLDTIME seconds. This message is multicast to the "all-cbt-routers" group over multicast-capable interfaces, and unicast otherwise.
If a multicast ECHO_REQUEST message arrives via any valid parent interface, the router resets its [ECHO_INTERVAL] timer for that upstream interface, thereby suppressing the sending of its own ECHO_REQUEST over that upstream interface.
4.6. ECHO_REPLY Processing
ECHO_REPLY messages allow a child to monitor the reachability of its parent, and help ensure the group state information is consistent between them.
4.6.1. Sending ECHO_REPLY messages
An ECHO_REPLY message is sent in response to receiving an ECHO_REQUEST message, provided the ECHO_REQUEST is received over any one of this router's valid child interfaces. An ECHO_REPLY reports all groups for which the link is its child.
ECHO_REPLY messages are unicast or multicast, as appropriate.
4.6.2. Receiving ECHO_REPLY messages
An ECHO_REPLY message must be received via a valid parent interface.
For each group reported in an ECHO_REPLY, the downstream router attempts to match the group with one in its forwarding cache for which the arrival interface is the group's parent interface. For each successful match, the entry is "refreshed". If however, after [GROUP_EXPIRE_TIME] seconds a group has not been "refreshed", a QUIT_NOTIFICATION is sent upstream, and a FLUSH_TREE message is sent downstream, for the group.
If this router has directly attached members for any of the flushed groups, the receipt of an IGMP host membership report for any of those groups will prompt this router to rejoin the corresponding tree(s).
Ballardie Experimental [Page 12] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
4.7. FLUSH_TREE Processing
The FLUSH_TREE (flush) message is the mechanism by which a router invokes the tearing down of all its downstream branches for a particular group. The flush message is multicast to the "all-cbt- routers" group when sent over multicast-capable interfaces, and unicast otherwise.
4.7.1. Sending FLUSH_TREE messages
A FLUSH_TREE message is sent over each downstream (child) interface when a router has lost reachability with its parent router for the group (detected via ECHO_REQUEST and ECHO_REPLY messages). All group state is removed from an interface over which a flush message is sent. A flush can specify a single group, or all groups (INADDR_ANY).
4.7.2. Receiving FLUSH_TREE messages
A FLUSH_TREE message must be received over the parent interface for the specified group, otherwise the message is discarded.
The flush message must be forwarded over each child interface for the specified group.
Once the flush message has been forwarded, all state for the group is removed from the router's forwarding cache.
5. Non-Member Sending
Data can be sent to a CBT tree by a sender not attached to the group tree. The sending host originates native multicast data, which is promiscuously received by a local router, which must be CBT capable. It is assumed the local CBT router knows about the relevant <core, group> mapping, and thus can encapsulate (IP-in-IP) the data packet and unicast it to the corresponding core router. On arriving at the core router, the data packet is decapsulated and disemminated over the group tree in the manner already described.
6. Timers and Default Values
This section provides a summary of the timers described above, together with their recommended default values. Other values may be configured; if so, the values used should be consistent across all CBT routers attached to the same network.
o [HELLO_INTERVAL]: the interval between sending an HELLO message. Default: 60 seconds.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 13] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
o [HELLO_PREFERENCE]: Default: 255.
o [HOLDTIME]: generic response interval. Default: 3 seconds.
o [MAX_RTX]: default maximum number of retransmissions. Default 3.
o [RTX_INTERVAL]: message retransmission time. Default: 5 seconds.
o [JOIN_TIMEOUT]: raise exception due to tree join failure. Default: 3.5 times [RTX_INTERVAL].
o [TRANSIENT_TIMEOUT]: delete (unconfirmed) transient state. Default: (1.5*RTX_INTERVAL) seconds.
o [CACHE_DEL_TIMER]: remove child interface from forwarding cache. Default: (1.5*HOLDTIME) seconds.
o [GROUP_EXPIRE_TIME]: time to send a QUIT_NOTIFICATION to our non-responding parent. Default: (1.5*ECHO_INTERVAL).
o [ECHO_INTERVAL]: interval between sending ECHO_REQUEST to parent routers. Default: 60 seconds.
o [EXPECTED_REPLY_TIME]: consider parent unreachable. Default: 70 seconds.
7. CBT Packet Formats and Message Types
CBT control packets are encapsulated in IP. CBT has been assigned IP protocol number 7 by IANA .
7.1. CBT Common Control Packet Header
All CBT control messages have a common fixed length header.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | vers | type | addr len | checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. CBT Common Control Packet Header
This CBT specification is version 2.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 14] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
CBT packet types are:
o type 0: HELLO
o type 1: JOIN_REQUEST
o type 2: JOIN_ACK
o type 3: QUIT_NOTIFICATION
o type 4: ECHO_REQUEST
o type 5: ECHO_REPLY
o type 6: FLUSH_TREE
o type 7: Bootstrap Message (optional)
o type 8: Candidate Core Advertisement (optional)
o Addr Length: address length in bytes of unicast or multicast addresses carried in the control packet.
o Checksum: the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of the entire CBT control packet.
7.2. HELLO Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preference | option type | option len | option value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. HELLO Packet Format
HELLO Packet Field Definitions:
o preference: sender's HELLO preference.
o option type: the type of option present in the "option value" field. One option type is currently defined: option type 0 (zero) = BR_HELLO; option value 0 (zero); option length 0 (zero). This option type is used with HELLO messages sent by a
Ballardie Experimental [Page 15] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
border router (BR) as part of designated BR election (see ).
o option len: length of the "option value" field in bytes.
o option value: variable length field carrying the option value.
7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | target router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | option type | option len | option value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format
JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions
o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined. For a "wildcard" join (see ), this field contains the value of INADDR_ANY.
o target router: target (core) router for the group.
o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST.
o option type, option len, option value: see HELLO packet format, section 7.2.
7.4. JOIN_ACK Packet Format
JOIN_ACK Field Definitions
o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined.
o target router: router (DR) that originated the corresponding JOIN_REQUEST.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 16] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | target router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | option type | option len | option value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. JOIN_ACK Packet Format o option type, option len, option value: see HELLO packet format, section 7.2.
7.5. QUIT_NOTIFICATION Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating child router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5. QUIT_NOTIFICATION Packet Format
QUIT_NOTIFICATION Field Definitions
o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined.
o originating child router: address of the router that originates the QUIT_NOTIFICATION.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 17] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
7.6. ECHO_REQUEST Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating child router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6. ECHO_REQUEST Packet Format
ECHO_REQUEST Field Definitions
o originating child router: address of the router that originates the ECHO_REQUEST.
7.7. ECHO_REPLY Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating parent router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address #2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address #n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7. ECHO_REPLY Packet Format
ECHO_REPLY Field Definitions
o oringinating parent router: address of the router originating this ECHO_REPLY.
o group address: a list of multicast group addresses for which
Ballardie Experimental [Page 18] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
this router considers itself a parent router w.r.t. the link over which this message is sent.
7.8. FLUSH_TREE Packet Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ...... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address #n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8. FLUSH_TREE Packet Format
FLUSH_TREE Field Definitions
o group address(es): multicast group address(es) of the group(s) being "flushed".
8. Core Router Discovery
There are two available options for CBTv2 core discovery; the "bootstrap" mechanism (as currently specified with the PIM sparse mode protocol ) is applicable only to intra-domain core discovery, and allows for a "plug & play" type operation with minimal configuration. The disadvantage of the bootstrap mechanism is that it is much more difficult to affect the shape, and thus optimality, of the resulting distribution tree. Also, to be applicable, all CBT routers within a domain must implement the bootstrap mechanism.
The other option is to manually configure leaf routers with <core, group> mappings (note: leaf routers only); this imposes a degree of administrative burden - the mapping for a particular group must be coordinated across all leaf routers to ensure consistency. Hence, this method does not scale particularly well. However, it is likely that "better" trees will result from this method, and it is also the only available option for inter-domain core discovery currently available.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 19] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
8.1. "Bootstrap" Mechanism Overview
It is unlikely that the bootstrap mechanism will be appended to a well-known network layer protocol, such as IGMP , though this would facilitate its ubiquitous (intra-domain) deployment. Therefore, each multicast routing protocol requiring the bootstrap mechanism must implement it as part of the multicast routing protocol itself.
A summary of the operation of the bootstrap mechanism follows (details are provided in ). It is assumed that all routers within the domain implement the "bootstrap" protocol, or at least forward bootstrap protocol messages.
A subset of the domain's routers are configured to be CBT candidate core routers. Each candidate core router periodically (default every 60 secs) advertises itself to the domain's Bootstrap Router (BSR), using "Core Advertisement" messages. The BSR is itself elected dynamically from all (or participating) routers in the domain. The domain's elected BSR collects "Core Advertisement" messages from candidate core routers and periodically advertises a candidate core set (CC-set) to each other router in the domain, using traditional hop- by-hop unicast forwarding. The BSR uses "Bootstrap Messages" to advertise the CC-set. Together, "Core Advertisements" and "Bootstrap Messages" comprise the "bootstrap" protocol.
When a router receives an IGMP host membership report from one of its directly attached hosts, the local router uses a hash function on the reported group address, the result of which is used as an index into the CC-set. This is how local routers discover which core to use for a particular group.
Note the hash function is specifically tailored such that a small number of consecutive groups always hash to the same core. Furthermore, bootstrap messages can carry a "group mask", potentially limiting a CC-set to a particular range of groups. This can help reduce traffic concentration at the core.
If a BSR detects a particular core as being unreachable (it has not announced its availability within some period), it deletes the relevant core from the CC-set sent in its next bootstrap message. This is how a local router discovers a group's core is unreachable; the router must re-hash for each affected group and join the new core after removing the old state. The removal of the "old" state follows the sending of a QUIT_NOTIFICATION upstream, and a FLUSH_TREE message downstream.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 20] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
8.2. Bootstrap Message Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT common control packet header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | For full Bootstrap Message specification, see  | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9. Bootstrap Message Format
8.3. Candidate Core Advertisement Message Format
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT common control packet header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | For full Candidate Core Adv. Message specification, see  | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10. Candidate Core Advertisement Message Format
9. Interoperability Issues
Interoperability between CBT and DVMRP is specified in .
Interoperability with other multicast protocols will be fully specified as the need arises.
10. Security Considerations
Security considerations are not addressed in this memo.
Whilst multicast security is a topic of ongoing research, multicast applications (users) nevertheless have the ability to take advantage of security services such as encryption or/and authentication provided such services are supported by the applications.
RFCs 1949 and 2093/2094 discuss different ways of distributing multicast key material, which can result in the provision of network layer access control to a multicast distribution tree.
 offers a synopsis of multicast security threats and proposes some possible counter measures.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 21] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
Beyond these, little published work exists on the topic of multicast security.
Special thanks goes to Paul Francis, NTT Japan, for the original brainstorming sessions that brought about this work.
The emergence of CBTv2 owes much to Clay Shields and his work on Ordered CBT (OCBT) . Clay identified and proved several failure modes of CBT as it was specified with multiple cores, and also suggested using an unreliable quit mechanism, which appears in this specification as the QUIT_NOTIFICATION. Clay has also provided more general constructive comments on the CBT architecture and specification.
Others that have contributed to the progress of CBT include Ken Carlberg, Eric Crawley, Jon Crowcroft, Mark Handley, Ahmed Helmy, Nitin Jain, Alan O'Neill, Steven Ostrowsksi, Radia Perlman, Scott Reeve, Benny Rodrig, Martin Tatham, Dave Thaler, Sue Thompson, Paul White, and other participants of the IETF IDMR working group.
Thanks also to 3Com Corporation and British Telecom Plc for funding this work.
 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture; A. Ballardie; RFC 2201, September 1997.
 Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Sparse Mode/Dense Mode; D. Estrin et al; ftp://netweb.usc.edu/pim Working drafts, 1996.
 Internet Group Management Protocol, version 2 (IGMPv2); W. Fenner; ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idmr-igmp- v2-**.txt. Working draft, 1996.
 Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, October 1994.
 CBT Border Router Specification for Interconnecting a CBT Stub Region to a DVMRP Backbone; A. Ballardie; ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idmr-cbt-dm- interop-**.txt. Working draft, March 1997.
 Ballardie, A., "Scalable Multicast Key Distribution", RFC 1949, July 1996.
Ballardie Experimental [Page 22] RFC 2189 CBTv2 Protocl Specification September 1997
 A Dynamic Bootstrap Mechanism for Rendezvous-based Multicast Routing; D. Estrin et al.; Technical Report; ftp://catarina.usc.edu/pim
 The Ordered Core Based Tree Protocol; C. Shields and J.J. Garcia- Luna-Aceves; In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom'97, Kobe, Japan, April 1997; http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/research/ccrg/publications/infocomm97ocbt.ps.gz
 Multicast-Specific Security Threats and Counter-Measures; A. Ballardie and J. Crowcroft; In Proceedings "Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security", February 1995, pp.2-16.
Tony Ballardie, Research Consultant
Ballardie Experimental [Page 23]