Network Working Group R. Boivie
Request for Comments: 5058 N. Feldman
Category: Experimental IBM
Y. Imai
WIDE / Fujitsu
W. Livens
ESCAUX
D. Ooms
OneSparrow
November 2007
Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options
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.
IESG Note
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The
IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not
based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control,
or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor
has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of
this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.
Abstract
While traditional IP multicast schemes (RFC 1112) are scalable for
very large multicast groups, they have scalability issues with a very
large number of distinct multicast groups. This document describes
Xcast (Explicit Multi-unicast), a new multicast scheme with
complementary scaling properties: Xcast supports a very large number
of small multicast sessions. Xcast achieves this by explicitly
encoding the list of destinations in the data packets, instead of
using a multicast group address.
This document discusses Xcast concepts and options in several areas;
it does not provide a complete technical specification.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Xcast Overview ..................................................4
3. The Cost of the Traditional IP Multicast Schemes ................6
4. Motivation ......................................................9
5. Application ....................................................11
6. Xcast Flexibility ..............................................12
7. Xcast Control Plane Options ....................................13
7.1. SIP Control Plane for Xcast ...............................14
7.2. Receiver-Initiated Join for Xcast .........................14
8. Optional Information ...........................................15
8.1. List of Ports .............................................15
8.2. List of DSCPs .............................................15
8.3. Channel Identifier ........................................15
9. Possible Xcast Packet Encoding .................................16
9.1. General ...................................................16
9.2. IPv4 ......................................................17
9.2.1. IPv4 Header ........................................17
9.2.2. Xcast4 Header ......................................17
9.3. IPv6 ......................................................20
9.3.1. IPv6 Header ........................................20
9.3.2. Xcast6 Header ......................................20
9.3.2.1. Routing Extension Header ..................21
9.3.2.2. Destination Extension Header ..............21
10. Impact on Upper-Layer Protocols ...............................22
10.1. Checksum Calculation in Transport-Layer Headers ..........22
10.2. IPsec ....................................................22
11. Gradual Deployment ............................................23
11.1. Tunneling ................................................23
11.2. Premature X2U ............................................25
11.3. Semi-Permeable Tunneling (IPv6 Only) .....................25
11.4. Special Case: Deployment without Network Support .........26
11.5. Using a Small Number of Xcast-Aware Routers to
Provide Xcast ............................................27
12. (Socket) API ..................................................28
13. Unresolved Issues .............................................28
13.1. The Format of the "List of Addresses" ....................28
13.2. The size of Channel Identifier ...........................28
13.3. Incremental Deployment ...................................28
13.4. DSCP usage ...............................................29
13.5. Traversing a Firewall or NAT Products ....................29
13.6. The Size of BITMAP .......................................29
14. Security Considerations .......................................29
15. IANA Considerations ...........................................30
16. Informative References ........................................31
17. Contributors ..................................................33
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
1. Introduction
While traditional IP multicast schemes [1112] are scalable for very
large multicast groups, they have scalability issues with a very
large number of distinct multicast groups. This document describes
Xcast (Explicit Multi-unicast (Xcast)), a new multicast scheme with
complementary scaling properties: Xcast supports a very large number
of small multicast sessions. Xcast achieves this by explicitly
encoding the list of destinations in the data packets, instead of
using a multicast group address. This document discusses Xcast
concepts and options in several areas; it does not provide a complete
technical specification.
Multicast, the ability to efficiently send data to a group of
destinations, is becoming increasingly important for applications
such as IP telephony and video-conferencing.
Two kinds of multicast seem to be important: a broadcast-like
multicast that sends data to a very large number of destinations, and
a "narrowcast" multicast that sends data to a fairly small group
[BOIV]. An example of the first is the audio and video multicasting
of a presentation to all employees in a corporate intranet. An
example of the second is a videoconference involving three or four
parties. For reasons described below, it seems prudent to use
different mechanisms for these two cases. As the Reliable Multicast
Transport working group has stated: "it is believed that a 'one size
fits all' protocol will be unable to meet the requirements of all
applications" [RMT]. Note that the 1998 IAB Routing Workshop [2902]
came to the same conclusion: "For example, providing for many groups
of small conferences (a small number of widely dispersed people) with
global topological scope scales badly given the current multicast
model".
Today's multicast schemes can be used to minimize bandwidth
consumption. Explicit Multi-Unicast (Xcast) also can be used to
minimize bandwidth consumption for "small groups". But it has an
additional advantage as well. Xcast eliminates the per-session
signaling and per-session state information of traditional IP
multicast schemes and this allows Xcast to support very large numbers
of multicast sessions. This scalability is important since it
enables important classes of applications such as IP telephony,
videoconferencing, collaborative applications, networked games, etc.,
where there are typically very large numbers of small multicast
groups.
Interestingly, the idea for Xcast has been around for some time,
although this was not immediately known to the three groups that
independently re-invented it in the late 1990's. In fact the very
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
first proposal of the multicast concept in the Internet community, by
Lorenzo Aguilar in his 1984 SIGCOMM paper [AGUI] proposed the use of
an explicit list of destinations discussed in more detail below. At
about the same time, David Cheriton and Stephen Deering developed
Host Group Multicast in 1985 [CHER].
The Internet community compared the two proposals and concluded that
a single mechanism was preferable to multiple mechanisms. Further,
since Aguilar's proposal seemed to have serious scaling problems, the
Host Group model was adopted.
However, for reasons described below, we believe it makes sense to
use different mechanisms for the two different kinds of multicast
discussed above. While Host Group multicast may have been sufficient
in the Internet of 1985, we believe that Xcast can be an important
complement to Host Group multicast in the Internet of the 21st
century.
2. Xcast Overview
In this document, the following terminology will be used:
- Session: in Xcast, the term 'multicast session' will be used
instead of 'multicast group' to avoid the strong association of
multicast groups with multicast group addresses in traditional IP
multicast.
- Channel: in a session with multiple senders (e.g., a video
conference), the flow sourced by one sender will be called a
channel. So, a session can contain one or more channels.
In the Host Group Model, the packet carries a multicast address as a
logical identifier of all group members. In Xcast, the source node
keeps track of the destinations in the multicast channel that it
wants to send packets to.
The source encodes the list of destinations in the Xcast header, and
then sends the packet to a router. Each router along the way parses
the header, partitions the destinations based on each destination's
next hop, and forwards a packet with an appropriate Xcast header to
each of the next hops.
When there is only one destination left, the Xcast packet can be
converted into a normal unicast packet, which can be unicasted along
the remainder of the route. This is called X2U (Xcast to Unicast).
For example, suppose that A is trying to get packets distributed to
B, C, and D in Figure 1 below:
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
R4 ---- B
/
/
A----- R1 ---- R2 ---- R3 R8 ---- C
\ /
\ /
R5 ---- R6 ---- R7
\
\
R9 ---- D
Figure 1
This is accomplished as follows: A sends an Xcast packet with the
list of destinations in its Xcast header to the first router, R1.
Since the Xcast header will be slightly different for IPv4 and IPv6
[2460], we won't reveal any details on the encoding of the Xcast
header in this section (see Section 9). So, ignoring the details,
the packet that A sends to R1 looks like this:
[ src = A | dest = B C D | payload ]
When R1 receives this packet, it needs to properly process the Xcast
header. The processing that a router does on receiving one of these
Xcast packets is as follows:
- Perform a route table lookup to determine the next hop for each of
the destinations listed in the packet.
- Partition the set of destinations based on their next hops.
- Replicate the packet so that there's one copy of the packet for
each of the next hops found in the previous steps.
- Modify the list of destinations in each of the copies so that the
list in the copy for a given next hop includes just the
destinations that ought to be routed through that next hop.
- Send the modified copies of the packet on to the next hops.
- Optimization: If there is only one destination for a particular
next hop, the packet can be sent as a standard unicast packet to
the destination (X2U).
So, in the example above, R1 will send a single packet on to R2 with
a destination list of < B C D >, and R2 will send a single packet to
R3 with the same destination list.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
When R3 receives the packet, it will, by the algorithm above, send
one copy of the packet to next hop R5 with an Xcast list of < C D >,
and one ordinary unicast packet addressed to < B > to R4. R4 will
receive a standard unicast packet and forward it on to < B >. R5
will forward the Xcast packet that it receives on to R6, which will
pass it on to R7. When the packet reaches R7, R7 will transmit
ordinary unicast packets addressed to < C > and < D >, respectively.
R8 and R9 will receive standard unicast packets, and forward the
packets on to < C > and < D >, respectively.
It's important that the Xcast packet that is sent to a given next hop
only includes destinations for which that next hop is the next hop
listed in the route table. If the list of destinations in the packet
sent to R4, for example, had also included C and D, R4 would send
duplicate packets.
Note that when routing topology changes, the routing for an Xcast
channel will automatically adapt to the new topology since the path
an Xcast packet takes to a given destination always follows the
ordinary, unicast routing for that destination.
3. The Cost of the Traditional IP Multicast Schemes
Traditional IP multicast schemes [DEER, DEE2, FARI] were designed to
handle very large multicast groups. These work well if one is trying
to distribute broadcast-like channels all around the world but they
have scalability problems when there is a very large number of
groups.
The characteristics of the traditional IP multicast model are
determined by its two components: the Host Group model [DEER] and a
Multicast Routing Protocol. Both components make multicast very
different from unicast.
In the Host Group model, a group of hosts is identified by a
multicast group address, which is used both for subscriptions and
forwarding. This model has two main costs:
- Multicast address allocation: The creator of a multicast group
must allocate a multicast address that is unique in its scope
(scope will often be global). This issue is being addressed by
the MALLOC working group, which is proposing a set of Multicast
Address Allocation Servers (MAAS) and three protocols (Multicast
Address Set Claim (MASC), Address Allocation Protocol (AAP),
Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)).
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
- Destination unawareness: When a multicast packet arrives in a
router, the router can determine the next hops for the packet,
but knows nothing about the ultimate destinations of the packet,
nor about how many times the packet will be duplicated later on
in the network. This complicates the security, accounting and
policy functions.
In addition to the Host Group model, a routing algorithm is required
to maintain the member state and the delivery tree. This can be done
using a (truncated) broadcast algorithm or a multicast algorithm
[DEER]. Since the former consumes too much bandwidth by
unnecessarily forwarding packets to some routers, only the multicast
algorithms are considered. These multicast routing protocols have
the following costs:
- Connection state: The multicast routing protocols exchange
messages that create state for each (source, multicast group) in
all the routers that are part of the point-to-multipoint tree.
This can be viewed as "per flow" signaling that creates
multicast connection state, possibly yielding huge multicast
forwarding tables. Some of these schemes even disseminate this
multicast routing information to places where it isn't
necessarily needed [1075]. Other schemes try to limit the
amount of multicast routing information that needs to be
disseminated, processed, and stored throughout the network.
These schemes (e.g., [2201]) use a "shared distribution tree"
that is shared by all the members of a multicast group and they
try to limit the distribution of multicast routing information
to just those nodes that "really need it". But these schemes
also have problems. Because of the shared tree, they use less
than optimal paths in routing packets to their destinations and
they tend to concentrate traffic in small portions of a network.
And these schemes still involve lots of "per flow" signaling and
"per flow" state.
- Source advertisement mechanism: Multicast routing protocols
provide a mechanism by which members get 'connected' to the
sources for a certain group without knowing the sources
themselves. In sparse-mode protocols [2201, DEE2], this is
achieved by having a core node, which needs to be advertised in
the complete domain. On the other hand, in dense-mode protocols
[1075] this is achieved by a "flood and prune" mechanism. Both
approaches raise additional scalability issues.
- Inter-domain routing: Multicast routing protocols that rely on a
core node [2201, DEE2] additionally need an inter-domain
multicast routing protocol (e.g., [FARI]).
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
The cost of multicast address allocation, destination unawareness and
the above scalability issues lead to a search for other multicast
schemes. Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) [4607] addresses some of
the above drawbacks: in SSM, a host joins a specific source, thus the
channel is identified by the couple (source address, multicast
address). This approach avoids multicast address allocation as well
as the need for an inter-domain routing protocol. The source
advertisement is taken out of the multicast routing protocol and is
moved to an out-of-band mechanism (e.g., web page).
Note that SSM still creates state and signaling per multicast channel
in each on-tree node. Figure 2 depicts the above costs as a function
of the number of members in the session or channel. All the costs
have a hyperbolic behavior.
cost of the traditional
IP multicast model
per member
^
| costly| OK
| <-----|----->
| . |
| .. |
| ..|..
| | .........
| | ........
+--------------------------->
| number of members
v
alternative=Xcast
Figure 2
The traditional IP multicast model becomes expensive for its members
if the groups are small. Small groups are typical for conferencing,
gaming, and collaborative applications. These applications are well-
served by Xcast.
In practice, traditional IP multicast routing protocols impose
limitations on the number of groups and the size of the network in
which they are deployed. For Xcast, these limitations do not exist.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
4. Motivation
Xcast takes advantage of one of the fundamental tenets of the
Internet "philosophy", namely, that one should move complexity to the
edges of the network and keep the middle of the network simple. This
is the principle that guided the design of IP and TCP and it's the
principle that has made the incredible growth of the Internet
possible. For example, one reason that the Internet has been able to
scale so well is that the routers in the core of the network deal
with large Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) blocks as opposed to
individual hosts or individual "connections". The routers in the
core don't need to keep track of the individual TCP connections that
are passing through them. Similarly, the IETF's Diffserv effort is
based on the idea that the routers shouldn't have to keep track of a
large number of individual Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) flows
that might be passing through them. It's the authors' belief that
the routers in the core shouldn't have to keep track of a large
number of individual multicast flows, either.
Compared to traditional IP multicast, Xcast has the following
advantages:
1) Routers do not have to maintain state per session (or per channel)
[SOLA]. This makes Xcast very scalable in terms of the number of
sessions that can be supported since the nodes in the network do
not need to disseminate or store any multicast routing information
for these sessions.
2) No multicast address allocation required.
3) No need for multicast routing protocols (neither intra- nor
inter-domain). Xcast packets always take the "right" path as
determined by the ordinary unicast routing protocols.
4) No core node, so no single point of failure. Unlike the shared
tree schemes, Xcast minimizes network latency and maximizes
network "efficiency".
5) Symmetric paths are not required. Traditional IP multicast
routing protocols create non-shortest-path trees if paths are not
symmetric. (A path between two nodes A and B is symmetric if the
path is both the shortest path from A to B as well as the shortest
path from B to A.) It is expected that an increasing number of
paths in the Internet will be asymmetric in the future as a result
of traffic engineering and policy routing, and thus the
traditional IP multicast schemes will result in an increasing
amount of suboptimal routing.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
6) Automatic reaction to unicast reroutes. Xcast will react
immediately to unicast route changes. In traditional IP multicast
routing protocols, a communication between the unicast and the
multicast routing protocol needs to be established. In many
implementations, this is on a polling basis, yielding a slower
reaction to, e.g., link failures. It may also take some time for
traditional IP multicast routing protocols to fix things up if
there is a large number of groups that need to be fixed.
7) Easy security and accounting. In contrast with the Host Group
Model, in Xcast all the sources know the members of the multicast
channel, which gives the sources the means to, e.g., reject
certain members or count the traffic going to certain members
quite easily. Not only a source, but also a border router is able
to determine how many times a packet will be duplicated in its
domain. It also becomes easier to restrict the number of senders
or the bandwidth per sender.
8) Heterogeneous receivers. Besides the list of destinations, the
packet could (optionally) also contain a list of Diffserv Code
Points (DSCPs). While traditional IP multicast protocols have to
create separate groups for each service class, Xcast incorporates
the possibility of having receivers with different service
requirements within one multicast channel.
9) Xcast packets can make use of traffic-engineered unicast paths.
10) Simple implementation of reliable protocols on top of Xcast,
because Xcast can easily address a subset of the original list of
destinations to do a retransmission.
11) Flexibility (see Section 6).
12) Easy transition mechanisms (see Section 11).
It should be noted that Xcast has a number of disadvantages as well:
1) Overhead. Each packet contains all remaining destinations. But,
the total amount of data is still much less than for unicast
(payload is only sent once). A method to compress the list of
destination addresses might be useful.
2) More complex header processing. Each destination in the packet
needs a routing table lookup. So, an Xcast packet with n
destinations requires the same number of routing table lookups as
n unicast headers. Additionally, a different header has to be
constructed per next hop. Note however that:
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
a) Since Xcast will typically be used for super-sparse sessions,
there will be a limited number of branching points, compared to
non-branching points. Only in a branching point do new headers
need to be constructed.
b) The header construction can be reduced to a very simple
operation: overwriting a bitmap.
c) Among the non-branching points, a lot of them will contain only
one destination. In these cases, normal unicast forwarding can
be applied.
d) By using a hierarchical encoding of the list of destinations in
combination with the aggregation in the forwarding tables the
forwarding can be accelerated [OOMS].
e) When the packet enters a region of the network where link
bandwidth is not an issue anymore, the packet can be
transformed by a Premature X2U. Premature X2U (see Section
11.2) occurs when a router decides to transform the Xcast
packet for one or more destinations into unicast packets. This
avoids more complex processing downstream.
f) Other mechanisms to reduce the processing have been described
in [IMAI] (tractable list) and [OOMS] (caching), but are not
(yet) part of the Xcast specification.
3) Xcast only works with a limited number of receivers.
5. Application
While Xcast is not suitable for multicast sessions with a large
number of members, such as the broadcast of an IETF meeting, it does
provide an important complement to existing multicast schemes in that
it can support very large numbers of small sessions. Thus, Xcast
enables important applications such as IP telephony,
videoconferencing, multi-player games, collaborative e-meetings, etc.
The number of these sessions will become huge.
Some may argue that it is not worthwhile to use multicast for
sessions with a limited number of members, and that it's preferable
to use unicast instead. But in certain cases, limited bandwidth in
the "last mile" makes it important to have some form of multicast, as
the following example illustrates. Assume n residential users set up
a video conference. Typically, access technologies are asymmetric
(e.g., xDSL, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), or cable modem).
So, a host with xDSL has no problem receiving n-1 basic 100 kb/s
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
video channels, but the host is not able to send its own video data
n-1 times at this rate. Because of the limited and often asymmetric
access capacity, some type of multicast is mandatory.
A simple but important application of Xcast lies in bridging the
access link. The host sends the Xcast packet with the list of
unicast addresses and the first router performs a Premature X2U.
Since Xcast is not suitable for large groups, Xcast will not replace
the traditional IP multicast model, but it does offer an alternative
for multipoint-to-multipoint communications when there can be very
large numbers of small sessions.
6. Xcast Flexibility
The main goal of multicast is to avoid duplicate information flowing
over the same link. By using traditional IP multicast instead of
unicast, bandwidth consumption decreases while the state and
signaling per session increases. Xcast has a cost of 0 in these two
dimensions, but it does introduce a third dimension corresponding to
the header processing per packet. This three-dimensional space is
depicted in Figure 3.
state&signaling
per session
in router
^
|
|
....
B | ....
. | ....
. | ....
. | ....
. +------------------..---> processing
. / .... C per packet
. / ..... in router
. / .....
. / .....
./ .....
/A....
/
/
link bandwidth
Figure 3
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
One method of delivering identical information from a source to n
destinations is to unicast the information n times (A in Figure 3).
A second method, the traditional IP multicast model (B in Figure 3),
sends the information only once to a multicast address. In Xcast,
the information is sent only once, but the packet contains a list of
destinations (point C).
The three points A, B, and C define a plane (indicated with dots in
Figure 3): a plane of conservation of misery. All three approaches
have disadvantages. The link bandwidth is a scarce resource,
especially in access networks. State&signaling/session encounters
limitations when the number of sessions becomes large, and an
increased processing/packet is cumbersome for high-link speeds.
One advantage of Xcast is that it allows a router to move within this
plane of conservation of misery based upon its location in a network.
For example, in the core of the network, a cache could be used to
move along the line from C to B without introducing any per-flow
signaling. Another possibility, as suggested above, is to use
premature X2U to move along the line from C to A in an access network
if there is an abundance of bandwidth in the backbone.
7. Xcast Control Plane Options
Unlike traditional IP multicast schemes, Xcast does not specify a
"control plane". There is no Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP [3376]), and as mentioned above, there are no intra- or inter-
domain multicast routing protocols. With Xcast, the means by which
multicast sessions are defined is an application-level issue and
applications are not confined to the model in which hosts use IGMP to
join a multicast session. For example:
- Some applications might want to use an IGMP-like receiver-join
model.
- Other applications might want to use a model in which a user places
a call to the party or parties that he or she wants to talk to
(similar to the way that one puts together a conference call today
using the buttons on one's telephone).
- One might define a session based on the cells that are close to a
moving device in order to provide for a "smooth handoff" between
cells when the moving device crosses cell boundaries.
- In some applications, the members of the session might be specified
as arguments on a command line.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
- One might define an application that uses GPS to send video from a
bank robbery to the three police cars that are closest to the bank
being robbed.
Thus, the application developer is not limited to the receiver-
initiated joins of the IGMP model. There will be multiple ways in
which an Xcast sender determines the addresses of the members of the
channel.
For the purpose of establishing voice and multimedia conferences over
IP networks, several control planes have already been defined,
including SIP [3261] and H.323 [H323].
7.1. SIP Control Plane for Xcast
In SIP, a host takes the initiative to set up a session. With the
assistance of a SIP server, a session is created. The session state
is kept in the hosts. Data delivery can be achieved by several
mechanisms: meshed unicast, bridged, or multicast. Note that for the
establishment of multicast delivery, a multicast protocol and
communication with Multicast Address Allocation Servers (MAAS) are
still required.
In "meshed unicast" or "multi-unicasting", the application keeps
track of the participants' unicast addresses and sends a unicast to
each of those addresses. For reasons described in Section 3, multi-
unicasting (rather than multicast) is the prevalent solution in use
today. It's a simple matter to replace multi-unicast code with Xcast
code. All that the developer has to do is replace a loop that sends
a unicast to each of the participants by a single "xcast_send" that
sends the data to the participants. Thus it's easy to incorporate
Xcast into real conferencing applications.
Both Xcast and SIP address super-sparse multicast sessions. It turns
out that Xcast (a very flexible data plane mechanism) can be easily
integrated with SIP (a very flexible control plane protocol). When
an application decides to use Xcast forwarding it does not affect its
interface to the SIP agent: it can use the same SIP messages as it
would for multi-unicasting. SIP could be used with Xcast to support
the conferencing model mentioned above in which a caller places a
call to several parties.
7.2. Receiver-Initiated Join for Xcast
In the previous section, it was discussed how to establish an Xcast
session among well known participants of a multi-party conference.
In some cases, it is useful for participants to be able to join a
session without being invited. For example, the chairman of a video
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
chat may want to leave the door of their meeting open for newcomers.
The IGMP-like receiver-initiated join model mentioned above can be
implemented by introducing a server that hosts can talk to, to join a
conference.
8. Optional Information
8.1. List of Ports
Although an extension to SIP could be arranged such that all
participants in a session use the same transport (UDP) port number,
in the general case, it is possible for each participant to listen on
a different port number. To cover this case, the Xcast packet
optionally contains a list of port numbers.
If the list of port numbers is present, the destination port number
in the transport-layer header will be set to zero. On X2U, the
destination port number in the transport-layer header will be set to
the port number corresponding to the destination of the unicast
packet.
8.2. List of DSCPs
The Xcast packet could (optionally) also contain a list of Diffserv
Code Points (DSCPs). While traditional IP multicast protocols have
to create separate groups for each service class, Xcast incorporates
the possibility of having receivers with different service
requirements within one channel.
The DSCP in the IP header will be set to the most demanding DSCP of
the list of DSCPs. This DSCP in the IP header will determine, e.g.,
the scheduler to use.
If two destinations, with the same next-hop, have 'non-mergeable'
DSCPs, two Xcast packets will be created. 'Non-mergeable' meaning
that one cannot say that one is more or less stringent than the
other.
8.3. Channel Identifier
Optionally, a sender can decide to add an extra number in the Xcast
header: the Channel Identifier. If the source does not want to use
this option, it must set the Channel Identifier to zero. If the
Channel Identifier is non-zero, the pair (Source Address, Channel
Identifier) must uniquely identify the channel (note that this is
similar to the (S, G) pair in SSM). This document does not assign
any other semantics to the Channel Identifier besides the one above.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
This Channel Identifier could be useful for several purposes:
1) A key to a caching table [OOMS].
2) "Harmonization" when used with Host Group Multicast (to be
discussed in greater detail in another document).
3) An identifier of the channel in error, flow control, etc.,
messages.
4) It gives an extra demultiplexing possibility (beside the port-
number).
5) ...
The size of the channel identifier and its semantics are TBD.
9. Possible Xcast Packet Encoding
9.1. General
The source address field of the IP header contains the address of the
Xcast sender. The destination address field carries the All-Xcast-
Routers address (to be assigned link-local multicast address); this
is to have a fixed value. Every Xcast router joins this multicast
group. The reasons for putting a fixed number in the destination
field are:
1) The destination address field is part of the IP pseudo header and
the latter is covered by transport layer checksums (e.g., UDP
checksum). So, the fixed value avoids a (delta) recalculation of
the checksum.
2) The IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [4302] covers the IP header
destination address, hence preventing any modification to that
field. Also, both AHs and Encapsulating Security Payloads (ESPs)
cover the whole UDP packet (via authentication and/or encryption).
The UDP checksum cannot therefore be updated if the IP header
destination address were to change.
3) In Xcast for IPv6, the Routing Extension shall be used; this
header extension is only checked by a router if the packet is
destined to this router. This is achieved by making all Xcast
routers part of the All_Xcast_Routers group.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
4) Normally Xcast packets are only visible to Xcast routers.
However, if a non-Xcast router receives an Xcast packet by
accident (or by criminal intent), it will not send ICMP errors
since the Xcast packet carries a multicast address in the
destination address field [1812].
Note that some benefits only hold when the multicast address stays in
the destination field until it reaches the end-node (thus not
combinable with X2U).
9.2. IPv4
[AGUI] and [1770] proposed (for a slightly different purpose) to
carry multiple destinations in the IPv4 option. But because of the
limited flexibility (limited size of the header), Xcast will follow
another approach. The list of destinations will be encoded in a
separate header. The Xcast header for IPv4 (in short, Xcast4) would
be carried between the IPv4 header and the transport-layer header.
[IPv4 header | Xcast4 | transport header | payload ]
Note also that since the Xcast header is added to the data portion of
the packet, if the sender wishes to avoid IP fragmentation, it must
take the size of the Xcast header into account.
9.2.1. IPv4 Header
The Xcast4 header is carried on top of an IP header. The IP header
will carry the protocol number listed as usable for experimental
purposes in RFC 4727 [4727]. See also Section 15. The source
address field contains the address of the Xcast sender. The
destination address field carries the All_Xcast_Routers address.
9.2.2. Xcast4 Header
The Xcast4 header is format depicted in Figure 4. It is composed of
two parts: a fixed part (first 12 octets) and two variable-length
parts that are specified by the fixed part.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|VERSION|A|X|D|P|R| NBR_OF_DEST | CHECKSUM |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CHANNEL IDENTIFIER |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PROT ID | LENGTH | RESV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| List of Addresses and DSCPs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| List of Port Numbers (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
VERSION = Xcast version number. This document describes version 1.
A = Anonymity bit: if this bit is set, the destination addresses for
which the corresponding bit in the bitmap is zero must be overwritten
by zero.
X = Xcast bit: if this bit is set, a router must not reduce the Xcast
packet to unicast packet(s), i.e., the packet must stay an Xcast
packet end-to-end. This bit can be useful when IPsec [4301] is
applied. If this bit is cleared a router should apply X2U if there
is only one destination left in the Xcast packet. In some cases a
router could decide not to apply X2U to a packet with the Xcast bit
cleared, e.g., the router has no directly connected hosts and wants
to avoid the extra processing required by X2U.
D = DSCP bit: if this bit is set, the packet will contain a DS byte
for each destination.
P = Port bit: if this bit is set, the packet will contain a port
number for each destination.
NBR_OF_DEST = the number of original destinations.
CHECKSUM = A checksum on the Xcast header only. This is verified and
recomputed at each point that the Xcast header is processed. The
checksum field is the 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement
sum of all the bytes in the header. For purposes of computing the
checksum, the value of the checksum field is zero. It is not clear
yet whether a checksum is needed (for further study). If only one
destination is wrong it can still be useful to forward the packet to
N-1 correct destinations and 1 incorrect destination.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
CHANNEL IDENTIFIER = 4-octet Channel Identifier (see Section 8.3).
Since it is located within the first 8 bytes of the header, it will
be returned in ICMP messages.
PROT ID = specifies the protocol of the following header.
LENGTH = length of the Xcast header in 4-octet words. This field
puts an upper boundary to the number of destinations. This value is
also determined by the NBR_OF_DEST field and the D and P bits.
RESV = R = Reserved. It must be zero on transmission and must be
ignored on receipt.
The first variable part is the 'List of Addresses and DSCPs', the
second variable part is the 'List of Port Numbers'. Both are 4-octet
aligned. The second variable part is only present if the P-bit is
set.
Figure 5 gives an example of the variable part for the case that the
P-bit is set and the D-bit is cleared (in this example, N is odd):
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BITMAP |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port 1 | Port 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port N | padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
BITMAP = every destination has a corresponding bit in the bitmap to
indicate whether the destination is still valid on this branch of the
tree. The first bit corresponds to the first destination in the
list. This field is 4-octet aligned (e.g., for 49 destinations,
there will be a 64-bit bitmap). If Xcast is applied in combination
with IPsec, the bitmap -- since it can change en route -- has to be
moved to a new to-be-defined IPv4 option.
List of Destinations. Each address size is 4 octets.
List of Port Numbers. List of 2-octet destination port number(s),
where each port corresponds in placement to the preceding Destination
Address.
9.3. IPv6
The Xcast6 header encoding is similar to IPv4, except that Xcast
information would be stored in IPv6 extension headers.
[IPv6 header | Xcast6 | transport header | payload ]
9.3.1. IPv6 Header
The IPv6 header will carry the NextHeader value 'Routing Extension'.
The source address field contains the address of the Xcast sender.
The destination address field carries the All_Xcast_Routers address.
9.3.2. Xcast6 Header
The Xcast6 header is also composed of a fixed part and two variable
parts. The fixed part and the first variable part are carried in a
Routing Extension. The second variable part is carried in a
Destination Extension.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
9.3.2.1. Routing Extension Header
The P-bit of Xcast4 is not present because it is implicit by the
presence or absence of the Destination Extension (Figure 6).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | HdrExtLen |RouteType=Xcast| 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|VERSION|A|X|D| R | NBR_OF_DEST | CHECKSUM |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CHANNEL IDENTIFIER |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| List of Addresses and DSCPs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
HdrExtLen = The header length is expressed in 8-octets; thus, a
maximum of 127 destinations can be listed (this is why NBR_OF_DEST is
7 bits).
RouteType = Xcast (see Section 15)
The fourth octet is set to 0.
R = Reserved.
CHANNEL IDENTIFIER = 16-octet Channel Identifier (see Section 8.3).
The other fields are defined in Section 9.2.2.
The 'List of Addresses and DSCPs' is 8-octet aligned. The size of
the bitmap is determined by the number of destinations and is a
multiple of 64 bits.
9.3.2.2. Destination Extension Header
Optionally, the Destination Extension (Figure 7) is present to
specify the list of Port Numbers. The destination header is only
evaluated by the destination node.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 21]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | HdrExtLen |Opt Type=Ports | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| List of Port Numbers |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
For the Option Type for Ports, see Section 15. The first three bits
must be 010 to indicate that the packet must be discarded if the
option is unknown and that the option cannot be changed en-route.
The number of Ports must be equal to the number of destinations
specified in the Routing header.
10. Impact on Upper-Layer Protocols
Some fields in the Xcast header(s) can be modified as the packet
travels along its delivery path. This has an impact on:
10.1. Checksum Calculation in Transport-Layer Headers
In transport-layer headers, the target of the checksum calculation
includes the IP pseudo header, transport header, and payload (IPv6
header extensions are not a target).
The transformation of an Xcast packet to a normal unicast packet --
(premature) X2U -- replaces the multicast address in the IP header
destination field by the address of a final destination. If the
Xcast header contains a Port List, the port number in the transport
layer (which should be zero) also needs to be replaced by the port
number corresponding to the destination. This requires a
recalculation of these checksums. Note that this does not require a
complete recalculation of the checksum, only a delta calculation,
e.g., for IPv4:
Checksum' = ~ (~Checksum + ~daH + ~daL + daH' + daL' + ~dp + dp')
In which "'" indicates the new values, "da" the destination address,
"dp" the destination port, and "H" and "L" the higher and lower 16
bits, respectively.
10.2. IPsec
This is described in [PARI].
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 22]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
11. Gradual Deployment
11.1. Tunneling
One way to deploy Xcast in a network that has routers that have no
knowledge of Xcast is to setup "tunnels" between Xcast peers (MBone
approach [MBONE]). This enables the creation of a virtual network
layered on top of an existing network [2003]. The Xcast routers
exchange and maintain Xcast routing information via any standard
unicast routing protocol (e.g., RIP, OSPF, IS-IS, BGP). The Xcast
routing table that is created is simply a standard unicast routing
table that contains the destinations that have Xcast connectivity,
along with their corresponding Xcast next hops. In this way, packets
may be forwarded hop-by-hop to other Xcast routers, or may be
"tunneled" through non- Xcast routers in the network.
For example, suppose that A is trying to get packets distributed to
B, C, and D in Figure 8 below, where "X" routers are Xcast-capable,
and "R" routers are not. Figure 9 shows the routing tables created
via the Xcast tunnels:
R4 ---- B
/
/
A ----- X1 ---- R2 ---- X3 R8 ---- C
\ /
\ /
R5 ---- R6 ---- X7
\
\
R9 ---- D
Figure 8
Router X1 establishes a tunnel to Xcast peer X3. Router X3
establishes a tunnel to Xcast peers X1 and X7. Router X7 establishes
a tunnel to Xcast peer X3.
X1 routing table: X3 routing table: X7 routing table:
Dest | NextHop Dest | NextHop Dest | NextHop
------+---------- ------+--------- ------+---------
B | X3 A | X1 A | X3
C | X3 C | X7 B | X3
D | X3 D | X7
Figure 9
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 23]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
The source A will send an Xcast packet to its default Xcast router,
X1, that includes the list of destinations for the packet. The
packet on the link between X1 and X3 is depicted in Figure 10:
+----------+
| payload |
+----------+
| UDP |
+----------+
| Xcast |
| B,C,D |
| prot=UDP |
+----------+
| inner IP |
| src=A |
|dst=All_X_|
|prot=Xcast|
+----------+
| outer IP |
| src=X1 |
| dst=X3 |
| prot=IP |
+----------+
Figure 10
When X3 receives this packet, it processes it as follows:
- Perform a route table lookup in the Xcast routing table to
determine the Xcast next hop for each of the destinations listed in
the packet.
- If no Xcast next hop is found, replicate the packet and send a
standard unicast to the destination.
- For those destinations for which an Xcast next hop is found,
partition the destinations based on their next hops.
- Replicate the packet so that there's one copy of the packet for
each of the Xcast next hops found in the previous steps.
- Modify the list of destinations in each of the copies so that the
list in the copy for a given next hop includes just the
destinations that ought to be routed through that next hop.
- Send the modified copies of the packet on to the next hops.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 24]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
- Optimization: If there is only one destination for a particular
Xcast next hop, send the packet as a standard unicast packet to the
destination, since there is no advantage to forwarding it as an
Xcast packet.
So, in the example above, X1 will send a single packet on to X3 with
a destination list of < B C D >. This packet will be received by R2
as a unicast packet with destination X3, and R2 will forward it on,
having no knowledge of Xcast. When X3 receives the packet, it will,
by the algorithm above, send one copy of the packet to destination
< B > as an ordinary unicast packet, and 1 copy of the packet to X7
with a destination list of < C D >. R4, R5, and R6 will behave as
standard routers with no knowledge of Xcast. When X7 receives the
packet, it will parse the packet and transmit ordinary unicast
packets addressed to < C > and < D >, respectively.
The updating of this route table, while simple in an intra-domain
environment, would be more complex in an inter-domain environment.
Thus, the use of tunneling in an inter-domain environment requires
further consideration.
11.2. Premature X2U
If a router discovers that its downstream neighbor is not Xcast
capable, it can perform a Premature X2U, i.e., send a unicast packet
for each destination in the Xcast header that has this neighbor as a
next hop. Thus, duplication is done before the Xcast packet reached
its actual branching point.
A mechanism (protocol/protocol extension) to discover the Xcast
capability of a neighbor is for further study. Among others, one
could think of an extension to a routing protocol to advertise Xcast
capabilities, or one could send periodic 'Xcast pings' to its
neighbors (send an Xcast packet that contains its own address as a
destination and check whether the packet returns).
11.3. Semi-Permeable Tunneling (IPv6 Only)
This is an optimization of tunneling in the sense that it does not
require (manual) configuration of tunnels. It is enabled by adding a
Hop-by-Hop Xcast6 header. An IPv6 packet can initiate/trigger
additional processing in the on-route routers by using the IPv6 Hop-
by-hop option.
The type of the Xcast6 Hop-by-hop option has a prefix '00' so that
routers that cannot recognize Xcast6 can treat the Xcast6 datagram as
a normal IPv6 datagram and forward it toward the destination in the
IPv6 header.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 25]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
Packets will be delivered to all members if at least all
participating hosts are upgraded.
When the source A sends an Xcast packet via semi-permeable tunneling
to destinations B, C, and D, it will create the packet of Figure 11.
One of the final destinations will be put in the destination address
field of the outer IP header.
+----------+
| payload |
+----------+
| UDP |
+----------+
| Xcast |
| |
+----------+
| inner IP |
| src=A |
|dst=All_X_|
|prot=Xcast|
+----------+
| Xcast |
|SP-tunnel |
|Hop-by-hop|
+----------+
| outer IP |
| src=A |
| dst=B |
| prot=IP |
+----------+
Figure 11
Semi-permeable tunneling is a special tunneling technology that
permits intermediate Xcast routers on a tunnel to check the
destinations and branch if destinations have a different next hop.
Note that with the introduction of an Xcast IPv4 option, this
technique could also be applied in IPv4 networks.
11.4. Special Case: Deployment without Network Support
A special method of deploying Xcast is possible by upgrading only the
hosts. By applying tunneling (see Sections 11.1 and 11.3) with one
of the final destinations as a tunnel endpoint, the Xcast packet will
be delivered to all destinations when all the hosts are Xcast aware.
Both normal and semi-permeable tunneling can be used.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 26]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
If host B receives this packet, in the above example, it will notice
the other destinations in the Xcast header. B will create a new
Xcast packet and will send it to one of the remaining destinations.
In the case of Xcast6 and semi-permeable tunneling, Xcast routers can
be introduced in the network without the need of configuring tunnels.
The disadvantages of this method are:
- all hosts in the session need to be upgraded.
- non-optimal routing.
- anonymity issue: hosts can know the identity of other parties in
the session (which is not a big issue in conferencing, but maybe for
some other application).
- host has to perform network functions and needs an upstream link
which has the same bandwidth as its downstream link.
11.5. Using a Small Number of Xcast-Aware Routers to Provide Xcast
in a Not-So-Small Network
In this approach, an Xcast packet uses a special 32-bit unicast
address in the destination field of the IP header. In the simplest
version of this scheme, there might be only a single Xcast-aware
router in a network. This Xcast-aware router looks like a "server"
to the other routers and it is configured so that its IP address (or
one of its IP addresses) corresponds to the "special" 32-bit address.
Thus, when Xcast clients send Xcast packets, the non-Xcast-aware
routers will route these packets to the Xcast-aware router and the
Xcast-aware router can "explode" (X2U) them into an appropriate set
of unicast packets. This allows clients anywhere in a network to use
Xcast to overcome the problem of limited bandwidth in the "first
mile" with a minimum number of Xcast-aware routers (i.e., 1).
Another possibility is to deploy a few of these Xcast-aware routers
at various points in the network and to configure each of these with
the special 32-bit address. This provides redundancy, eliminating
the single point of failure, and reduces the distance an Xcast packet
needs to travel to reach an Xcast-aware router, reducing network
latencies. In this case, the Xcast-aware routers appear to be a
single server that is "multihomed" (i.e., connected to the network at
more than one place) and the non-Xcast-aware routers will, via
ordinary unicast routing, deliver packets that are addressed to this
"multihomed virtual server" via the shortest available path.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 27]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
Note that this scheme of delivering packets to any host in a group is
also known as an "anycast" and is described in more detail in RFCs
[1546], [2526], and [3068]. Note too that RFC 1546 says:
The important observation is that multiple routes to an anycast
address appear to a router as multiple routes to a unicast
destination, and the router can use standard algorithms to
choose the best route.
12. (Socket) API
In the most simple use of Xcast, the final destinations of an Xcast
packet receive an ordinary unicast UDP packet. This means that hosts
can receive an Xcast packet with a standard, unmodified TCP/IP stack.
Hosts can also transmit Xcast packets with a standard TCP/IP stack
with a small Xcast library that sends Xcast packets on a raw socket.
This has been used to implement Xcast-based applications on both Unix
and Windows platforms without any kernel changes.
Another possibility is to modify the sockets interface slightly. For
example, one might add an "xcast_sendto" function that works like
"sendto" but that uses a list of destination addresses in place of
the single address that "sendto" uses.
13. Unresolved Issues
Additional work is needed in several areas.
13.1. The Format of the "List of Addresses"
Additional details need to be specified. For example, in the IPv4
case, the format of the DSCPs option needs to be specified.
13.2. The Size of Channel Identifier
The size of the channel identifiers in IPv4 and IPv6 are different in
this document. 32 bits might be sufficient for both IPv6 and IPv4.
13.3. Incremental Deployment
Several possible methods of incremental deployment are discussed in
this document including tunneling, premature X2U, etc. Additional
work is needed to determine the best means of incremental deployment
for an intra-domain as well as an inter-domain deployment of Xcast.
If tunneling is used, additional details need to be specified (e.g.,
tunneling format, use of tunnels in the inter-domain case).
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 28]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
13.4. DSCP Usage
DSCP usage needs some work. DSCPs may have to be rewritten as
packets cross inter-domain boundaries.
13.5. Traversing a Firewall or NAT Products
The usage of a different, carried protocol type for IPv4 may cause
difficulty in traversing some firewall and NAT products.
13.6. The Size of BITMAP
Given that this is designed for small groups, it might make sense to
simply mandate a fixed size for the bitmap.
14. Security Considerations
The list of destinations in Xcast is provided by an application layer
that manages group membership as well as authorization if
authorization is desired.
Since a source has the list of destinations and can make changes to
the list, it has more control over where its packets go than in
traditional multicast and can prevent anonymous eavesdroppers from
joining a multicast session, for example.
Some forms of denial-of-service attack can use Xcast to increase
their "effect". A smurf attack, for example, sends an ICMP Echo
Request in which the source address in the packet is set to the
address of the target of the attack so that the target will receive
the ICMP echo reply. With Xcast, the ICMP Echo Request could be sent
to a list of destinations that could cause each member of the list to
send an Echo Reply to the target.
Measures have been taken in traditional multicast to avoid this kind
of attack. A router or host can be configured so that it will not
reply to ICMP requests addressed to a multicast address. The Reverse
Path Forwarding check in traditional multicast architectures also
helps limit these attacks. In Xcast, it can be difficult for a host
to recognize that an ICMP request has been addressed to multiple
destinations since the packet may be an ordinary unicast packet by
the time it reaches the host. On the other hand, a router can detect
Xcast packets that are used to send ICMP requests to multiple
destinations and can be configured to drop those packets. Note, too,
that since Xcast sends packets to a short list of destinations, the
problem of sending attack packets to multiple destination is less of
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 29]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
a problem than in traditional multicast. Obviously, the use of IPsec
to provide confidentiality and/or authentication can further diminish
the risk of this type of attack.
The problem of secure group communications has been addressed by the
Multicast Security (MSEC) working group, which has defined an
architecture for securing IP-multicast-based group communications
[3740]. Many of the concepts discussed in the MSEC working group,
such as managing group membership, identifying and authenticating
group members, protecting the confidentiality and integrity of
multicast traffic, and managing and securely distributing and
refreshing keys, also apply to Xcast-based group communications. And
many of the same mechanisms seem to apply. One significant
difference between multicast and Xcast is the fact that the Xcast
header (or at least a bitmap in the Xcast header) needs to change as
an Xcast packet travels from a source to a destination. This affects
the use of IPsec and suggests that at least the Xcast header bitmap
must be in a "mutable" field. A complete solution for securing
Xcast-based group communications addressing all the issues listed
above will be the subject of additional work which will be discussed
in one or more additional documents. We expect that this effort will
build on the work that has already been done in the msec working
group.
15. IANA Considerations
Experimentation with the Xcast protocol requires the use of protocol
numbers maintained by IANA. For example, to implement XCAST6,
implementations must agree on four protocol numbers:
(1) Multicast Address for All_Xcast_Routers
(2) Routing Type of IPv6 Routing Header
(3) Option Type of IPv6 Destination Option Header
(4) Option Type of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header
A protocol implementer may temporarily experiment with Xcast by using
the values set aside for experimental use in RFC [4727]. An
implementer must verify that no other experiment uses the same values
on the Xcast testbed at the same time.
A future revision of the Xcast specification published on the
standards track is required before IANA can assign permanent registry
entries for Xcast. Implementers should be aware that they will need
to modify their implementations when such permanent allocations are
made.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 30]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
16. Informative References
[1546] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host Anycasting
Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.
[2526] Johnson, D. and S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
Addresses", RFC 2526, March 1999.
[3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC
3068, June 2001.
[1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[1075] Waitzman, D., Partridge, C., and S. Deering, "Distance Vector
Multicast Routing Protocol", RFC 1075, November 1988.
[1770] Graff, C., "IPv4 Option for Sender Directed Multi-Destination
Delivery", RFC 1770, March 1995.
[1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC
1812, June 1995.
[2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, October
1996.
[2201] Ballardie, A., "Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing
Architecture", RFC 2201, September 1997.
[2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[2902] Deering, S., Hares, S., Perkins, C., and R. Perlman,
"Overview of the 1998 IAB Routing Workshop", RFC 2902, August
2000.
[3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3",
RFC 3376, October 2002.
[3740] Hardjono, T. and B. Weis, "The Multicast Group Security
Architecture", RFC 3740, March 2004.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 31]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
[4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
2005.
[4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP",
RFC 4607, August 2006.
[4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.
[AGUI] L. Aguilar, "Datagram Routing for Internet Multicasting",
SIGCOMM '84, March 1984.
[CHER] David R. Cheriton, Stephen E. Deering, "Host groups: a
multicast extension for datagram internetworks", Proceedings
of the ninth symposium on Data communications, p. 172-179,
September 1985, Whistler Moutain, British Columbia, Canada.
[BOIV] Boivie, R. and N. Feldman, "Small Group Multicast", Work in
Progress, February 2001.
[DEER] S. Deering, "Multicast Routing in a datagram internetwork",
PhD thesis, December 1991.
[DEE2] S. Deering, D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, and
L. Wei, "The Pim Architecture for Wide-area Multicast
Routing", ACM Transactions on Networks, April 1996.
[FARI] Farinacci, D., et al., "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol",
Work in Progress, June 1998.
[H323] ITU-T Recommendation H.323 (2000), Packet-Based Multimedia
Communications Systems.
[IMAI] Imai, Y., "Multiple Destination option on IPv6 (MDO6)", Work
in Progress, September 2000,
[MBONE] Casner, S., "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the
Multicast Backbone (MBONE)",
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/mbone/faq.txt>.
[OOMS] Ooms, D., Livens, W., and O. Paridaens, "Connectionless
Multicast", Work in Progress, April 2000.
[PARI] Paridaens, O., Ooms, D., and B. Sales, "Security Framework
for Explicit Multicast", Work in Progress, June 2002.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 32]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
[RMT] Reliable Multicast Transport Working Group web site,
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rmt-charter.html>, June
15, 1999.
[SOLA] M. Sola, M. Ohta, T. Maeno, "Scalability of Internet
Multicast Protocols", INET'98,
<http://www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/6d/6d_3.htm>.
17. Contributors
Olivier Paridaens
Alcatel Network Strategy Group
Fr. Wellesplein 1, 2018
Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: 32 3 2409320
EMail: Olivier.Paridaens@alcatel.be
Eiichi Muramoto
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
4-12-4 Higashi-shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku
Tokyo 140-8587, Japan
Phone: +81-3-6710-2031
EMail: muramoto@xcast.jp
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 33]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
Authors' Addresses
Rick Boivie
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Phone: 914-784-3251
EMail: rhboivie@us.ibm.com
Nancy Feldman
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
EMail: nkfeldman@yahoo.com
Yuji Imai
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
1-1, Kamikodanaka 4-Chome, Nakahara-ku
Kawasaki 211-8588, Japan
Phone: +81-44-754-2628
Fax : +81-44-754-2793
EMail: ug@xcast.jp
Wim Livens
ESCAUX
Krijtstraat 17, 2600
Berchem, Belgium
EMail: wim@livens.net
Dirk Ooms
OneSparrow
Belegstraat 13; 2018
Antwerp, Belgium
EMail: dirk@onesparrow.com
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 34]
RFC 5058 Xcast Concepts and Options November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, 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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Boivie, et al. Experimental [Page 35]
|
