<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pim-light-11" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PIM Light">Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM
    Light)</title>

    <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H" role="editor"
            surname="Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>March Road</street>

          <city>Ottawa</city>

          <region>Ontario</region>

          <code>K2K 2T6</code>

          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Stig Venaas" initials="S." surname="Venaas">
      <organization>Cisco System, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Tasman Drive</street>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>California</region>

          <code>95134</code>

          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>stig@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Mankamana Mishra" initials="M." surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Cisco System</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Tasman Drive</street>

          <city>San Jose</city>

          <region>California</region>

          <code>95134</code>

          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>mankamis@cisco.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Boston</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>zzhang@juniper.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Mike McBride" initials="M." surname="McBride">
      <organization>Futurewei Technologies Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>

          <city>Santa Clara</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>michael.mcbride@futurewei.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="05" month="December" year="2024"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM
      Light) and PIM Light Interface (PLI) which does not need PIM Hello
      message to accept PIM Join/Prune messages. PLI can signal multicast
      states over networks that can not support full PIM neighbor discovery,
      as an example BIER networks that are connecting two or more PIM domains.
      This document outlines the PIM Light protocol and procedures to ensure
      loop-free multicast traffic between two or more PIM Light routers.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <!-- 1 -->

      <t>This document specifies the Protocol Independent Multicast Light (PIM
      Light) and PIM Light Interface (PLI) procedures. PLI is a new type of
      PIM interface that allows signaling of PIM Join/Prune packets without
      full PIM neighbor discovery. PLI is useful in scenarios where multicast
      states needs to be signalled over networks or media that cannot support
      full PIM neighborship between routers or alternatively full PIM
      neighborship is not desired. These type of networks or medias are
      addressed as a PIM Light Domain within this document. Lack of full PIM
      neighborship will remove some PIM functionality as explained in section
      3.2 of this document. PIM Light only supports Protocol Independent
      Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) protocol including PIM Source-Specific
      Multicast (PIM-SSM) as per <xref target="RFC7761"/>. The document
      details procedures and considerations needed for PIM Light and PLI to
      ensure efficient routing of multicast groups for specific deployment
      environments.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Conventions used in this document">
      <!-- 2 -->

      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
      <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

      <section title="Definitions">
        <!-- 2.1 -->

        <t>This document uses definitions used in Protocol Independent
        Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification <xref
        target="RFC7761"/></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="PIM Light Interface">
      <!--  3 -->

      <t>RFC <xref target="RFC7761"/> section 4.3.1 describes the PIM neighbor
      discovery via Hello messages. In section 4.5 it describes that if a
      router receives a Join/Prune message from a particular IP source address
      and it has not seen a PIM Hello message from that source address, then
      the Join/Prune message SHOULD be discarded without further
      processing.</t>

      <t>In certain scenarios, it is desirable to establish multicast states
      between two layer-3 adjacent routers without forming a PIM neighborship.
      This can be necessary for various reasons, such as signaling multicast
      states upstream between multiple PIM domains over a network that is not
      optimized for PIM or does not necessitate PIM Neighbor establishment.
      For example, in a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) <xref
      target="RFC8279"/> networks connecting multiple PIM domains, where PIM
      Join/Prune messages are tunneled via BIER as specified in <xref
      target="draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling"/>.</t>

      <t>A PIM Light Interface (PLI) accepts Join/Prune messages from an
      unknown PIM router without requiring a PIM Hello message from the
      router. The absence of Hello messages on a PLI means there is no
      mechanism to discover neighboring PIM routers or their capabilities, nor
      to execute basic algorithms such as Designated Router (DR) election
      <xref target="RFC7761"/>. Consequently, the PIM Light router does not
      create any general-purpose state for neighboring PIM routers and only
      processes Join/Prune messages from downstream routers in its multicast
      routing table. Processing these Join/Prune messages will introduce
      multicast states in a PIM Light router.</t>

      <t>Due to these constraints, a PLI should be deployed in very specific
      scenarios where PIM-SM is not suitable. The applications or the networks
      that PLIs are deployed on MUST ensure there is no multicast packet
      duplication, such as multiple upstream routers sending the same
      multicast stream to a single downstream router. As an example the
      implementation should ensure that DR election is done on upstream
      Redundant PIM routers that are at the edge of the PIM Light Domain to
      ensure a single Designated Router to forward the PIM Join message from
      reviver to the Source.</t>

      <section title="PLI supported Messages">
        <t>IANA <xref target="iana pim-parameters message-types"/>, lists the
        PIM supported message types. PIM Light only supports the following
        message types from the table "PIM Message Types"</t>

        <t><list style="numbers">
            <t>type 3 (Join/Prune) from the ALL-PIM-ROUTERS message types
            listed in <xref target="RFC7761"/>.</t>

            <t>type 1 (Register)</t>

            <t>type 2 (Register Stop)</t>

            <t>type 8 (Candidate RP Advertisement)</t>

            <t>type 13 (PIM Packed Null-Register)</t>

            <t>type 13.1 (PIM Packed Register-Stop)</t>

            <t>Any future PIM message types that use unicast destination
            IP.</t>
          </list> No other message types are supported for PIM Light and MUST
        NOT be process if received on a PLI.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Absence of Hello Message consideration">
        <t>In a PIM Light domain, the following considerations should be taken
        into account due to the lack of processing Hello messages.</t>

        <section title="Join Attribute">
          <t>Since a PLI does not process PIM Hello messages, it also does not
          support the join attributes option in PIM Hello as specified in
          <xref target="RFC5384"/>. As such, PIM Light is unaware of its
          neighbor's capability to process join attributes and it SHOULD NOT
          process a join message containing it.</t>

          <t>For a PLI to send and process a join attributes there can be two
          cases: <list style="numbers">
              <t>It must be configured with appropriate join attribute type
              that the PLI is capable of processing as per <xref
              target="iana pim-parameters join-attribute-types"/> table.</t>

              <t>Separate IETF drafts or RFCs may dictate that certain join
              attributes are allowed to be used without explicit configuration
              of the PLI in certain scenarios. The details are left to those
              drafts or RFCs.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="DR Election">
          <t>Due to the absence of Hello messages, DR Election is not
          supported on a PIM Light router. The network design must ensure DR
          Election occurs within the PIM domain, assuming the PIM Light domain
          interconnects PIM domains.</t>

          <t><figure>
              <artwork><![CDATA[                    Bier edge router       Bier edge router (BER) 
           |--PIM Domain--|--BIER domain (PLI)--|--PIM domain--| 
 Source--( A )----------( B ) ---- ( C ) ---- ( D )----------( E )--host
           |       PIM Adj|         | |         |PIM Adj       |
           |------------( E )-------| |-------( F )------------|
                                          (DR Election)]]></artwork>
            </figure></t>

          <t>For instance, in a BIER domain connecting two PIM networks, a PLI
          can be used between BIER edge routers solely for multicast state
          communication and transmit only PIM Join/Prune messages. If there
          are redundant PIM routers at the edge of the BIER domain, to prevent
          multicast stream duplication, they MUST establish PIM adjacency as
          per <xref target="RFC7761"/> to ensure DR election at the edge of
          BIER domain. An example DR election could be DR election between
          router D and F in above figure. When the Join or Prune message
          arrives from a PIM domain to the down stream BIER edge router, it
          can be forwarded over the BIER tunnel to the upstream BIER edge
          router only via the designated router.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="PIM Assert">
          <t>In scenarios where multiple PIM routers peer over a shared LAN or
          a Point-to-Multipoint medium, more than one upstream router may have
          valid forwarding state for a packet, potentially causing packet
          duplication. PIM Assert is used to select a single transmitter when
          such duplication is detected. According to <xref target="RFC7761"/>
          section 4.6, PIM Assert should only be accepted from a known PIM
          neighbor.</t>

          <t>In PIM Light implementations, care must be taken to avoid
          duplicate streams arriving from multiple upstream PIM Light routers
          to a single downstream PIM Light router. If network design
          constraints prevent this, the implemented network architecture must
          take measures to avoid traffic duplication. For example, in a PIM
          Light over a BIER domain scenario, downstream IBBR (Ingress BIER
          Border Router) in a BIER domain can identify the nearest EBBRs
          (Egress BIER Border Routers) to the source using the Shortest Path
          First (SPF) algorithm with a post-processing as described in <xref
          target="draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling"/> Appendix A.1. If the
          downstream IBBR identifies two EBBRs, it can select one using a
          unique IP selection algorithm, such as choosing the EBBR with the
          lowest or highest IP address. If the selected EBBR goes offline, the
          downstream router can use the next EBBR based on the IP selection
          algorithm, which is beyond the scope of this document.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section title="PLI Configuration">
        <!-- 3.1 -->

        <t>Since a PLI doesn't require PIM Hello Messages and PIM neighbor
        adjacency is not checked for arriving Join/Prune messages, there needs
        to be a mechanism to enable PLI on interfaces. If a router supports
        PIM Light, only when PLI is enabled on an interface, arriving
        Join/Prune messages MUST be processed, otherwise they MUST be dropped.
        While on some logical interfaces PLI maybe enabled automatically or
        via an underlying mechanism, as an example the logical interface
        connecting two or more BIER edge routers in a BIER subdomain <xref
        target="draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Failures in PLR domain">
        <t>Because the Hello messages are not processed on the PLI, PIM Light
        Interface failures may not be discovered in a PIM Light domain and
        multicast routes will not be pruned toward the source on the PIM Light
        domain, leaving the upstream routers continuously sending multicast
        streams until the outgoing interface (OIF) expires.</t>

        <t>Other protocols can be used to detect these failures in the PIM
        Light domain and they can be implementation specific. As an example,
        the interface that PIM Light is configured on can be protected via
        Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) or similar technology. If BFD
        to the far-end PLI goes down, and the PIM Light Router is upstream and
        has an OIF for a multicast route &lt;S,G&gt;, PIM must remove that PLI
        from its OIF list.</t>

        <t><figure>
            <artwork><![CDATA[                         UBER                 DBER 
           |--PIM Domain--|--BIER domain (PLI)--|--PIM domain--| 
 Source--( A )----------( B ) ---- ( C ) ---- ( D )----------( E )--host
                  <--Prune <S,G>          <failure on D>]]></artwork>
          </figure></t>

        <t>In another example, where the PLI is configured automatically
        between the BIER Edge Routers (BER), when the downstream BIER Edge
        Router (DBER) is no longer reachable on the upstream BIER Edge Router
        (UBER), the UBER which is also a PIM Light Router can prune the
        &lt;S,G&gt; advertised toward the source on the PIM domain to stop the
        transmission of the multicast stream.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM LIGHT">
        <t><xref target="RFC6559"/> defines a reliable transport mechanism for
        PIM transmission of Join/Prune messages, using either TCP or SCTP as
        transport protocol. For TCP, PIM over reliable transport (PORT) uses
        port 8471 which is assigned by IANA. SCTP is explained in <xref
        target="RFC9260"/>, and it is used as a second option for PORT. <xref
        target="RFC6559"/> mentions that when a router is configured to use
        PIM over TCP on a given interface, it MUST include the
        PIM-over-TCP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello messages for that
        interface. The same is true for SCTP and the router must include
        PIM-over-SCTP-Capable Hello Option in its Hello messsage on that
        interface.</t>

        <t>These Hello options contain a Connection ID which is an IPv4 or
        IPv6 address used to establish the SCTP or TCP connection. For PORT
        using TCP, the connection ID is used for determining which peer is
        doing an active transport open to the neighbor and which peer is doing
        passive transport open, as per section 4 of <xref
        target="RFC6559"/></t>

        <t>When the router is using SCTP, the Connection ID IP address
        comparison need not be done since the SCTP protocol can handle call
        collision.</t>

        <t>PIM Light lacks Hello messages, the PLI can be configured with the
        Connection ID IPv4 or IPv6 addresses used to establish the SCTP or TCP
        connection. For PIM Light using TCP PORT option each end of the PLI
        must be explicitly and correct configured as being active transport
        open or passive transport open to ensure handle call collision is
        avoided.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="PIM Variants not supported">
        <t>The following PIM variants are not supported with PIM Light and not
        covered by this document:</t>

        <t><list style="numbers">
            <t>Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM)<xref
            target="RFC3973"> </xref></t>

            <t>Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM) <xref
            target="RFC5015"/></t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <!-- 7 -->

      <t>There are no new IANA considerations for this document.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <!-- 8 -->

      <t>Since PIM Light does not require PIM Hello messages and does not
      verify PIM neighbor adjacency for incoming Join/Prune messages, it is
      crucial for security reasons, that the implementation ensures only
      Join/Prune messages arriving at a configured PLI are processed. Any
      Join/Prune messages received on an interface that is not configured as a
      PLI MUST be discarded and not processed. Additionally, as a secondary
      line of defense, route policies SHOULD be implemented to process only
      the Join/Prune messages associated with the desired (S,G) pairs, while
      all other (S,G) pairs MUST be discarded and not processed.</t>

      <t>Furthermore, because PIM Light can be used for signaling
      Source-Specific and Sparse Mode Join/Prune messages, the security
      considerations outlined in <xref target="RFC7761"/> and <xref
      target="RFC4607"/> SHOULD be considered where appropriate.</t>

      <t>In section 6.1.1 of <xref target="RFC7761"/>, only forged join/prune
      message should be considered as a potential attack vector, as PIM Light
      does not process Hello or Assert messages. In addition, as detailed in
      Section 6.3, the authentication mechanisms described in <xref
      target="RFC5796"/> can be applied to PIM Light via IPsec Encapsulating
      Security Payload (ESP) or, optionally, the Authentication Header
      (AH).</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgments">
      <!-- 9 -->

      <t>Would like to thank Sandy &lt;Zhang Zheng&gt; and Tanmoy Kundu for
      their suggestions and contribution to this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <!-- 10.1 -->

      <reference anchor="RFC2119">
        <front>
          <title>S. Brandner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="1997"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8174">
        <front>
          <title>B. Leiba, "ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
          Key Words"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="May" year="2017"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC7761">
        <front>
          <title>B.Fenner, M.Handley, H. Holbrook, I. Kouvelas, R. Parekh,
          Z.Zhang "PIM Sparse Mode"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC5384">
        <front>
          <title>A. Boers, I. Wijnands, E. Rosen "PIM Join Attribute
          Format"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="2016"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="iana pim-parameters message-types"
                 target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#message-types">
        <front>
          <title/>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="01" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="iana pim-parameters join-attribute-types"
                 target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#pim-parameters-2">
        <front>
          <title/>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="01" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC6559">
        <front>
          <title>D. Farinacci, I. Wijnands, S. Venaas, M. Napierala "A
          reliable Transport Mechanism for PIM"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC4607">
        <front>
          <title>H. Holbrook, B. Cain "Source-Specific Multicast for
          IP"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC5796">
        <front>
          <title>W. Atwood, S. Islam, M. Siami "Authentication and
          Confidentiality in PIM-SM"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC5015">
        <front>
          <title>M. Handley, I. Kouvelas, T. Speakman, L. Vicisano
          "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8279">
        <front>
          <title>Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T. and S.
          Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="October" year="2016"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9260">
        <front>
          <title>R. Stewart, M. Tuxen, K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
          Transmission Protocol"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="June" year="2022"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <reference anchor="RFC3973">
        <front>
          <title>A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak, "Protocol Independent
          Multicast - Dense Mode"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling">
        <front>
          <title>H.Bidgoli, F.XU, J. Kotalwar, I. Wijnands, M.Mishra, Z.
          Zhang, "PIM Signaling Through BIER Core"</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="July" year="2021"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
<!-- generated from file C:\Users\hbidgoli\Downloads\draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling-08.nroff with nroff2xml 0.1.0 by Tomek Mrugalski -->
