GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8293

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Ghanwani Request for Comments: 8293 Dell Category: Informational L. Dunbar ISSN: 2070-1721 M. McBride

                                                                Huawei
                                                             V. Bannai
                                                                Google
                                                           R. Krishnan
                                                                  Dell
                                                          January 2018
  A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3

Abstract

 This document provides a framework for supporting multicast traffic
 in a network that uses Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3).
 Both infrastructure multicast and application-specific multicast are
 discussed.  It describes the various mechanisms that can be used for
 delivering such traffic as well as the data plane and control plane
 considerations for each of the mechanisms.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8293.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 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 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.  Infrastructure Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.2.  Application-Specific Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 2.  Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 3.  Multicast Mechanisms in Networks That Use NVO3  . . . . . . .   5
   3.1.  No Multicast Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.2.  Replication at the Source NVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.3.  Replication at a Multicast Service Node . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.4.  IP Multicast in the Underlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.5.  Other Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 4.  Simultaneous Use of More Than One Mechanism . . . . . . . . .  12
 5.  Other Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.1.  Multicast-Agnostic NVEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.2.  Multicast Membership Management for DC with VMs . . . . .  13
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 8.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

1. Introduction

 Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) [RFC7365] is a technology
 that is used to address issues that arise in building large, multi-
 tenant data centers (DCs) that make extensive use of server
 virtualization [RFC7364].
 This document provides a framework for supporting multicast traffic
 in a network that uses NVO3.  Both infrastructure multicast and
 application-specific multicast are considered.  It describes various
 mechanisms, and the considerations of each of them, that can be used
 for delivering such traffic in networks that use NVO3.
 The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
 concepts as defined in the NVO3 Framework [RFC7365] and NVO3
 Architecture [RFC8014] documents.

1.1. Infrastructure Multicast

 Infrastructure multicast refers to networking services that require
 multicast or broadcast delivery, such as Address Resolution Protocol
 (ARP), Neighbor Discovery (ND), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
 (DHCP), multicast Domain Name Server (mDNS), etc., some of which are
 described in Sections 5 and 6 of RFC 3819 [RFC3819].  It is possible
 to provide solutions for these services that do not involve multicast
 in the underlay network.  For example, in the case of ARP/ND, a
 Network Virtualization Authority (NVA) can be used for distributing
 the IP address to Media Access Control (MAC) address mappings to all
 of the Network Virtualization Edges (NVEs).  An NVE can then trap ARP
 Request and/or ND Neighbor Solicitation messages from the Tenant
 Systems (TSs) that are attached to it and respond to them, thereby
 eliminating the need for the broadcast/multicast of such messages.
 In the case of DHCP, the NVE can be configured to forward these
 messages using the DHCP relay function [RFC2131].
 Of course, it is possible to support all of these infrastructure
 multicast protocols natively if the underlay provides multicast
 transport.  However, even in the presence of multicast transport, it
 may be beneficial to use the optimizations mentioned above to reduce
 the amount of such traffic in the network.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

1.2. Application-Specific Multicast

 Application-specific multicast traffic refers to multicast traffic
 that originates and is consumed by user applications.  Several such
 applications are described elsewhere [DC-MC].  Application-specific
 multicast may be either Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) or Any-Source
 Multicast (ASM) [RFC3569] and has the following characteristics:
 1.  Receiver hosts are expected to subscribe to multicast content
     using protocols such as IGMP [RFC3376] (IPv4) or Multicast
     Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] (IPv6).  Multicast sources and
     listeners participate in these protocols using addresses that are
     in the TS address domain.
 2.  The set of multicast listeners for each multicast group may not
     be known in advance.  Therefore, it may not be possible or
     practical for an NVA to get the list of participants for each
     multicast group ahead of time.

2. Terminology and Abbreviations

 In this document, the terms host, Tenant System (TS), and Virtual
 Machine (VM) are used interchangeably to represent an end station
 that originates or consumes data packets.
 ASM:  Any-Source Multicast
 IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol
 LISP: Locator/ID Separation Protocol
 MSN:  Multicast Service Node
 RLOC: Routing Locator
 NVA:  Network Virtualization Authority
 NVE:  Network Virtualization Edge
 NVGRE:  Network Virtualization using GRE
 PIM:  Protocol-Independent Multicast
 SSM:  Source-Specific Multicast
 TS:   Tenant System
 VM:   Virtual Machine

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 VN:   Virtual Network
 VTEP: VXLAN Tunnel End Point
 VXLAN:  Virtual eXtensible LAN

3. Multicast Mechanisms in Networks That Use NVO3

 In NVO3 environments, traffic between NVEs is transported using an
 encapsulation such as VXLAN [RFC7348] [VXLAN-GPE], Network
 Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE) [RFC7637],
 Geneve [Geneve], Generic UDP Encapsulation [GUE], etc.
 What makes networks using NVO3 different from other networks is that
 some NVEs, especially NVEs implemented in servers, might not support
 regular multicast protocols such as PIM.  Instead, the only
 capability they may support would be that of encapsulating data
 packets from VMs with an outer unicast header.  Therefore, it is
 important for networks using NVO3 to have mechanisms to support
 multicast as a network capability for NVEs, to map multicast traffic
 from VMs (users/applications) to an equivalent multicast capability
 inside the NVE, or to figure out the outer destination address if NVE
 does not support native multicast (e.g., PIM) or IGMP.
 With NVO3, there are many possible ways that multicast may be handled
 in such networks.  We discuss some of the attributes of the following
 four methods:
 1.  No multicast support
 2.  Replication at the source NVE
 3.  Replication at a multicast service node
 4.  IP multicast in the underlay
 These methods are briefly mentioned in the NVO3 Framework [RFC7365]
 and NVO3 Architecture [RFC8014] documents.  This document provides
 more details about the basic mechanisms underlying each of these
 methods and discusses the issues and trade-offs of each.
 We note that other methods are also possible, such as [EDGE-REP], but
 we focus on the above four because they are the most common.
 It is worth noting that when selecting a multicast mechanism, it is
 useful to consider the impact of these on any multicast congestion
 control mechanisms that applications may be using to obtain the
 desired system dynamics.  In addition, the same rules for Explicit

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 Congestion Notification (ECN) would apply to multicast traffic being
 encapsulated, as for unicast traffic [RFC6040].

3.1. No Multicast Support

 In this scenario, there is no support whatsoever for multicast
 traffic when using the overlay.  This method can only work if the
 following conditions are met:
 1.  All of the application traffic in the network is unicast traffic,
     and the only multicast/broadcast traffic is from ARP/ND
     protocols.
 2.  An NVA is used by all of the NVEs to determine the mapping of a
     given TS's MAC and IP address to the NVE that it is attached to.
     In other words, there is no data-plane learning.  Address
     resolution requests via ARP/ND that are issued by the TSs must be
     resolved by the NVE that they are attached to.
 With this approach, it is not possible to support application-
 specific multicast.  However, certain multicast/broadcast
 applications can be supported without multicast; for example, DHCP,
 which can be supported by use of DHCP relay function [RFC2131].
 The main drawback of this approach, even for unicast traffic, is that
 it is not possible to initiate communication with a TS for which a
 mapping to an NVE does not already exist at the NVA.  This is a
 problem in the case where the NVE is implemented in a physical switch
 and the TS is a physical end station that has not registered with the
 NVA.

3.2. Replication at the Source NVE

 With this method, the overlay attempts to provide a multicast service
 without requiring any specific support from the underlay, other than
 that of a unicast service.  A multicast or broadcast transmission is
 achieved by replicating the packet at the source NVE and making
 copies, one for each destination NVE that the multicast packet must
 be sent to.
 For this mechanism to work, the source NVE must know, a priori, the
 IP addresses of all destination NVEs that need to receive the packet.
 For the purpose of ARP/ND, this would involve knowing the IP
 addresses of all the NVEs that have TSs in the VN of the TS that
 generated the request.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 For the support of application-specific multicast traffic, a method
 similar to that of receiver-sites registration for a particular
 multicast group, described in [LISP-Signal-Free], can be used.  The
 registrations from different receiver sites can be merged at the NVA,
 which can construct a multicast replication list inclusive of all
 NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast group are
 attached.  The replication list for each specific multicast group is
 maintained by the NVA.  Note that using receiver-sites registration
 does not necessarily mean the source NVE must do replication.  If the
 NVA indicates that multicast packets are encapsulated to multicast
 service nodes, then there would be no replication at the NVE.
 The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing
 IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain the state for which attached TSs have
 subscribed to a given IP multicast group.  When the members of a
 multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3
 gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.
 The NVEs and NVO3 gateways then communicate with the multicast groups
 that are of interest to the NVA.  If the membership is not
 communicated to the NVA, and if it is necessary to prevent TSs
 attached to an NVE that have not subscribed to a multicast group from
 receiving the multicast traffic, the NVE would need to maintain
 multicast group membership information.
 In the absence of IGMP/MLD snooping, the traffic would be delivered
 to all TSs that are part of the VN.
 In multihoming environments, i.e., in those where a TS is attached to
 more than one NVE, the NVA would be expected to provide information
 to all of the NVEs under its control about all of the NVEs to which
 such a TS is attached.  The ingress NVE can then choose any one of
 those NVEs as the egress NVE for the data frames destined towards the
 multi-homed TS.
 This method requires multiple copies of the same packet to all NVEs
 that participate in the VN.  If, for example, a tenant subnet is
 spread across 50 NVEs, the packet would have to be replicated 50
 times at the source NVE.  Obviously, this approach creates more
 traffic to the network that can cause congestion when the network
 load is high.  This also creates an issue with the forwarding
 performance of the NVE.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 Note that this method is similar to what was used in Virtual Private
 LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4762] prior to support of Multiprotocol Label
 Switching (MPLS) multicast [RFC7117].  While there are some
 similarities between MPLS Virtual Private Network (VPN) and NVO3,
 there are some key differences:
 o  The attachment from Customer Edge (CE) to Provider Edge (PE) in
    VPNs is somewhat static, whereas in a DC that allows VMs to
    migrate anywhere, the TS attachment to NVE is much more dynamic.
 o  The number of PEs to which a single VPN customer is attached in an
    MPLS VPN environment is normally far less than the number of NVEs
    to which a VN's VMs are attached in a DC.
 When a VPN customer has multiple multicast groups, "Multicast VPN"
 [RFC6513] combines all those multicast groups within each VPN client
 to one single multicast group in the MPLS (or VPN) core.  The result
 is that messages from any of the multicast groups belonging to one
 VPN customer will reach all the PE nodes of the client.  In other
 words, any messages belonging to any multicast groups under customer
 X will reach all PEs of the customer X.  When the customer X is
 attached to only a handful of PEs, the use of this approach does not
 result in an excessive waste of bandwidth in the provider's network.
 In a DC environment, a typical hypervisor-based virtual switch may
 only support on the order of 10's of VMs (as of this writing).  A
 subnet with N VMs may be, in the worst case, spread across N virtual
 switches (vSwitches).  Using an "MPLS VPN multicast" approach in such
 a scenario would require the creation of a multicast group in the
 core in order for the VN to reach all N NVEs.  If only a small
 percentage of this client's VMs participate in application-specific
 multicast, a great number of NVEs will receive multicast traffic that
 is not forwarded to any of their attached VMs, resulting in a
 considerable waste of bandwidth.
 Therefore, the multicast VPN solution may not scale in a DC
 environment with the dynamic attachment of VNs to NVEs and a greater
 number of NVEs for each VN.

3.3. Replication at a Multicast Service Node

 With this method, all multicast packets would be sent using a unicast
 tunnel encapsulation from the ingress NVE to a Multicast Service Node
 (MSN).  The MSN, in turn, would create multiple copies of the packet
 and would deliver a copy, using a unicast tunnel encapsulation, to
 each of the NVEs that are part of the multicast group for which the
 packet is intended.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 This mechanism is similar to that used by the Asynchronous Transfer
 Mode (ATM) Forum's LAN Emulation (LANE) specification [LANE].  The
 MSN is similar to the Rendezvous Point (RP) in Protocol Independent
 Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), but different in that the user data
 traffic is carried by the NVO3 tunnels.
 The following are possible ways for the MSN to get the membership
 information for each multicast group:
 o  The MSN can obtain this membership information from the IGMP/MLD
    report messages sent by TSs in response to IGMP/MLD query messages
    from the MSN.  The IGMP/MLD query messages are sent from the MSN
    to the NVEs, which then forward the query messages to TSs attached
    to them.  An IGMP/MLD query message sent out by the MSN to an NVE
    is encapsulated with the MSN address in the outer IP source
    address field and the address of the NVE in the outer IP
    destination address field.  An encapsulated IGMP/MLD query message
    also has a virtual network (VN) identifier (corresponding to the
    VN that the TSs belong to) in the outer header and a multicast
    address in the inner IP destination address field.  Upon receiving
    the encapsulated IGMP/MLD query message, the NVE establishes a
    mapping for "MSN address" to "multicast address", decapsulates the
    received encapsulated IGMP/MLD message, and multicasts the
    decapsulated query message to the TSs that belong to the VN
    attached to that NVE.  An IGMP/MLD report message sent by a TS
    includes the multicast address and the address of the TS.  With
    the proper "MSN address" to "multicast address" mapping, the NVEs
    can encapsulate all multicast data frames containing the
    "multicast address" with the address of the MSN in the outer IP
    destination address field.
 o  The MSN can obtain the membership information from the NVEs that
    have the capability to establish multicast groups by snooping
    native IGMP/MLD messages (note that the communication must be
    specific to the multicast addresses) or by having the NVA obtain
    the information from the NVEs and in turn have MSN communicate
    with the NVA.  This approach requires additional protocol between
    MSN and NVEs.
 Unlike the method described in Section 3.2, there is no performance
 impact at the ingress NVE, nor are there any issues with multiple
 copies of the same packet from the source NVE to the MSN.  However,
 there remain issues with multiple copies of the same packet on links
 that are common to the paths from the MSN to each of the egress NVEs.
 Additional issues that are introduced with this method include the
 availability of the MSN, methods to scale the services offered by the
 MSN, and the suboptimality of the delivery paths.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 Finally, the IP address of the source NVE must be preserved in packet
 copies created at the multicast service node if data-plane learning
 is in use.  This could create problems if IP source address Reverse
 Path Forwarding (RPF) checks are in use.

3.4. IP Multicast in the Underlay

 In this method, the underlay supports IP multicast and the ingress
 NVE encapsulates the packet with the appropriate IP multicast address
 in the tunnel encapsulation header for delivery to the desired set of
 NVEs.  The protocol in the underlay could be any variant of PIM, or a
 protocol-dependent multicast, such as [ISIS-Multicast].
 If an NVE connects to its attached TSs via a Layer 2 network, there
 are multiple ways for NVEs to support the application-specific
 multicast:
 o  The NVE only supports the basic IGMP/MLD snooping function, while
    the "TS routers" handle the application-specific multicast.  This
    scheme doesn't utilize the underlay IP multicast protocols.
    Instead routers, which are themselves TSs attached to the NVE,
    would handle multicast protocols for the application-specific
    multicast.  We refer to such routers as TS routers.
 o  The NVE can act as a pseudo multicast router for the directly
    attached TSs and support the mapping of IGMP/MLD messages to the
    messages needed by the underlay IP multicast protocols.
 With this method, there are none of the issues with the methods
 described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 with respect to scaling and
 congestion.  Instead, there are other issues described below.
 With PIM-SM, the number of flows required would be (n*g), where n is
 the number of source NVEs that source packets for the group, and g is
 the number of groups.  Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR-PIM) would offer
 better scalability with the number of flows required being g.
 Unfortunately, many vendors still do not fully support BIDIR or have
 limitations on its implementation.  [RFC6831] describes the use of
 SSM as an alternative to BIDIR, provided that the NVEs have a way to
 learn of each other's IP addresses so that they can join all of the
 SSM Shortest Path Trees (SPTs) to create/maintain an underlay SSM IP
 multicast tunnel solution.
 In the absence of any additional mechanism (e.g., using an NVA for
 address resolution), for optimal delivery, there would have to be a
 separate group for each VN for infrastructure multicast plus a
 separate group for each application-specific multicast address within
 a tenant.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 An additional consideration is that only the lower 23 bits of the IP
 address (regardless of whether IPv4 or IPv6 is in use) are mapped to
 the outer MAC address, and if there is equipment that prunes
 multicasts at Layer 2, there will be some aliasing.
 Finally, a mechanism to efficiently provision such addresses for each
 group would be required.
 There are additional optimizations that are possible, but they come
 with their own restrictions.  For example, a set of tenants may be
 restricted to some subset of NVEs, and they could all share the same
 outer IP multicast group address.  This, however, introduces a
 problem of suboptimal delivery (even if a particular tenant within
 the group of tenants doesn't have a presence on one of the NVEs that
 another one does, the multicast packets would still be delivered to
 that NVE).  It also introduces an additional network management
 burden to optimize which tenants should be part of the same tenant
 group (based on the NVEs they share), which somewhat dilutes the
 value proposition of NVO3 (to completely decouple the overlay and
 physical network design allowing complete freedom of placement of VMs
 anywhere within the DC).
 Multicast schemes such as Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER)
 [RFC8279] may be able to provide optimizations by allowing the
 underlay network to provide optimum multicast delivery without
 requiring routers in the core of the network to maintain per-
 multicast group state.

3.5. Other Schemes

 There are still other mechanisms that may be used that attempt to
 combine some of the advantages of the above methods by offering
 multiple replication points, each with a limited degree of
 replication [EDGE-REP].  Such schemes offer a trade-off between the
 amount of replication at an intermediate node (e.g., router) versus
 performing all of the replication at the source NVE or all of the
 replication at a multicast service node.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

4. Simultaneous Use of More Than One Mechanism

 While the mechanisms discussed in the previous section have been
 discussed individually, it is possible for implementations to rely on
 more than one of these.  For example, the method of Section 3.1 could
 be used for minimizing ARP/ND, while at the same time, multicast
 applications may be supported by one, or a combination, of the other
 methods.  For small multicast groups, the methods of source NVE
 replication or the use of a multicast service node may be attractive,
 while for larger multicast groups, the use of multicast in the
 underlay may be preferable.

5. Other Issues

5.1. Multicast-Agnostic NVEs

 Some hypervisor-based NVEs do not process or recognize IGMP/MLD
 frames, i.e., those NVEs simply encapsulate the IGMP/MLD messages in
 the same way as they do for regular data frames.
 By default, a TS router periodically sends IGMP/MLD query messages to
 all the hosts in the subnet to trigger the hosts that are interested
 in the multicast stream to send back IGMP/MLD reports.  In order for
 the MSN to get the updated multicast group information, the MSN can
 also send the IGMP/MLD query message comprising a client-specific
 multicast address encapsulated in an overlay header to all of the
 NVEs to which the TSs in the VN are attached.
 However, the MSN may not always be aware of the client-specific
 multicast addresses.  In order to perform multicast filtering, the
 MSN has to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
 corresponding routers to maintain the multicast membership.  In order
 for the MSN to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
 router, the NVA needs to configure the NVE to send copies of the
 IGMP/MLD messages to the MSN in addition to the default behavior of
 sending them to the TSs' routers; e.g., the NVA has to inform the
 NVEs to encapsulate data frames with the Destination Address (DA)
 being 224.0.0.2 (DA of IGMP report) to the TSs' router and MSN.
 This process is similar to "Source Replication" described in
 Section 3.2, except the NVEs only replicate the message to the TSs'
 router and MSN.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

5.2. Multicast Membership Management for DC with VMs

 For DCs with virtualized servers, VMs can be added, deleted, or moved
 very easily.  When VMs are added, deleted, or moved, the NVEs to
 which the VMs are attached are changed.
 When a VM is deleted from an NVE or a new VM is added to an NVE, the
 VM management system should notify the MSN to send the IGMP/MLD query
 messages to the relevant NVEs (as described in Section 3.3) so that
 the multicast membership can be updated promptly.
 Otherwise, if there are changes of VMs attachment to NVEs (within the
 duration of the configured default time interval that the TSs routers
 use for IGMP/MLD queries), multicast data may not reach the VM(s)
 that moved.

6. Security Considerations

 This document does not introduce any new security considerations
 beyond what is described in the NVO3 Architecture document [RFC8014].

7. IANA Considerations

 This document does not require any IANA actions.

8. Summary

 This document has identified various mechanisms for supporting
 application-specific multicast in networks that use NVO3.  It
 highlights the basics of each mechanism and some of the issues with
 them.  As solutions are developed, the protocols would need to
 consider the use of these mechanisms, and coexistence may be a
 consideration.  It also highlights some of the requirements for
 supporting multicast applications in an NVO3 network.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [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>.
 [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in
            MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513,
            February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 [RFC7364]  Narten, T., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., Black, D., Fang, L.,
            Kreeger, L., and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement:
            Overlays for Network Virtualization", RFC 7364,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7364, October 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7364>.
 [RFC7365]  Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and
            Y. Rekhter, "Framework for Data Center (DC) Network
            Virtualization", RFC 7365, DOI 10.17487/RFC7365, October
            2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7365>.
 [RFC8014]  Black, D., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Lasserre, M., and
            T. Narten, "An Architecture for Data-Center Network
            Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)", RFC 8014,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8014, December 2016,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8014>.

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
            RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
 [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
            Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
 [RFC3569]  Bhattacharyya, S., Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
            Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, DOI 10.17487/RFC3569, July
            2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3569>.
 [RFC3819]  Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
            Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and
            L. Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers",
            BCP 89, RFC 3819, DOI 10.17487/RFC3819, July 2004,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3819>.
 [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
            LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
            Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
 [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
            Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
            2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 [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, January
            2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
 [RFC7117]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
            C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
            (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>.
 [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
            L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
            eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
            Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
            Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
 [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
            Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
            RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.
 [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
            Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
            Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
 [DC-MC]    McBride, M. and H. Liu, "Multicast in the Data Center
            Overview", Work in Progress, draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-
            overview-02, July 2012.
 [EDGE-REP] Marques, P., Fang, L., Winkworth, D., Cai, Y., and
            P. Lapukhov, "Edge multicast replication for BGP IP
            VPNs.", Work in Progress, draft-marques-l3vpn-
            mcast-edge-01, June 2012.
 [Geneve]   Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
            Network Virtualization Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-05, September 2017.
 [GUE]      Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
            Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05, December 2017.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

 [ISIS-Multicast]
            Yong, L., Weiguo, H., Eastlake, D., Qu, A., Hudson, J.,
            and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Protocol Extension For Building
            Distribution Trees", Work in Progress,
            draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-03, October 2014.
 [LANE]     ATM Forum, "LAN Emulation Over ATM: Version 1.0", ATM
            Forum Technical Committee, af-lane-0021.000, January 1995.
 [LISP-Signal-Free]
            Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
            Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-
            multicast-07, November 2017.
 [VXLAN-GPE]
            Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
            Extension for VXLAN", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05, October 2017.

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 8293 A Framework for Multicast in NVO3 January 2018

Acknowledgments

 Many thanks are due to Dino Farinacci, Erik Nordmark, Lucy Yong,
 Nicolas Bouliane, Saumya Dikshit, Joe Touch, Olufemi Komolafe, and
 Matthew Bocci for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Authors' Addresses

 Anoop Ghanwani
 Dell
 Email: anoop@alumni.duke.edu
 Linda Dunbar
 Huawei Technologies
 5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 1750
 Plano, TX  75024
 United States of America
 Phone: (469) 277 5840
 Email: ldunbar@huawei.com
 Mike McBride
 Huawei Technologies
 Email: mmcbride7@gmail.com
 Vinay Bannai
 Google
 Email: vbannai@gmail.com
 Ram Krishnan
 Dell
 Email: ramkri123@gmail.com

Ghanwani, et al. Informational [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8293.txt · Last modified: 2018/01/02 23:51 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki