Network Working Group T. Pusateri
Request for Comments: 4602 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational August 2006
Network Working Group T. Pusateri
Request for Comments: 4602 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational August 2006
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Analysis
协议无关多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）IETF提出的标准需求分析
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol from IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard.
本文档提供了支持文档，以将独立于协议的多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）路由协议从IETF的实验状态提升到提议的标准。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. RFC 1264 Requirements ...........................................2
2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage ............2
2.2. Management Information Base ................................2
2.3. Explicit Security Architecture .............................2
2.4. Implementation Existence ...................................3
2.4.1. XORP ................................................3
2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX .......................................3
2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. ..........................3
2.4.4. Procket Networks ....................................3
2.5. Evidence of Testing ........................................4
2.5.1. Cisco ...............................................4
2.5.2. XORP ................................................4
2.5.3. Procket Networks ....................................5
2.6. Suitability ................................................5
2.7. Authentication Mechanisms ..................................5
3. Security Considerations .........................................5
4. Acknowledgements ................................................5
5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5.2. Informative References .....................................6
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. RFC 1264 Requirements ...........................................2
2.1. Documents Specifying the Protocol and Its Usage ............2
2.2. Management Information Base ................................2
2.3. Explicit Security Architecture .............................2
2.4. Implementation Existence ...................................3
2.4.1. XORP ................................................3
2.4.2. Cisco IOS/IOX .......................................3
2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd. ..........................3
2.4.4. Procket Networks ....................................3
2.5. Evidence of Testing ........................................4
2.5.1. Cisco ...............................................4
2.5.2. XORP ................................................4
2.5.3. Procket Networks ....................................5
2.6. Suitability ................................................5
2.7. Authentication Mechanisms ..................................5
3. Security Considerations .........................................5
4. Acknowledgements ................................................5
5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5.2. Informative References .....................................6
This analysis provides supporting documentation to advance the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol from the IETF Experimental status to Proposed Standard. PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as RFC 2362 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then rewritten in whole in order to more fully specify the protocol. It is this new specification that is to be advanced to Proposed Standard.
该分析提供了支持文档，以将独立于协议的多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）路由协议从IETF的实验状态提升到提议的标准。PIM-SM于1997年首次作为RFC 2117[RFC2117]出版，1998年再次作为RFC 2362[RFC2362]出版。在这两份文件中，该方案被归类为实验方案。然后对PIM-SM协议规范进行整体重写，以便更全面地指定协议。正是这一新规范将被提升到拟议标准。
Section 4.0 of RFC 1264 [RFC1264] describes the requirements for routing protocols to advance to Proposed Standard. Each requirement is listed below along with an explanation of how the requirement has been satisfied.
RFC 1264[RFC1264]第4.0节描述了路由协议的要求，以达到拟定标准。下面列出了每个要求，并解释了如何满足这些要求。
The authors of the new PIM-SM specification [RFC4601] have taken considerable care to fully specify the protocol operation. It removes all known ambiguities and tries to normalize corner cases that existed in the previous specification. It has been used to provide several interoperable implementations by developers that were not authors of the specification. These implementations will be described below.
新的PIM-SM规范[RFC4601]的作者非常小心地全面指定了协议操作。它消除了所有已知的歧义，并尝试规范化先前规范中存在的拐角情况。它被非规范作者的开发人员用来提供几个可互操作的实现。下面将描述这些实现。
A Management Information Base for PIM is currently specified in RFC 2934 [RFC2934]. This MIB has many implementations and has been used by network management applications for several years. Updates to this MIB to support IPv6 and other improvements based on operation experience are in progress in the PIM Working Group of the IETF.
目前，RFC 2934[RFC2934]中规定了PIM的管理信息库。此MIB有许多实现，并已被网络管理应用程序使用多年。IETF的PIM工作组正在根据运行经验对该MIB进行更新，以支持IPv6和其他改进。
The new PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification contains an extensive security section explaining its security features and limitations. Data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication is provided for PIM protocol messages.
新的PIM稀疏模式协议规范包含大量的安全部分，解释其安全特性和限制。为PIM协议消息提供数据完整性保护和分组数据源身份验证。
There are at least 4 known independent implementations of the new protocol specification, and there are over 6 independent implementations of a previous version (RFC 2362) of the specification. The new specification was carefully written to be backward compatible with the old specification allowing implementations compliant with RFC 2362 to also be compliant with the new specification.
新协议规范至少有4个已知的独立实现，规范先前版本（RFC 2362）有6个以上的独立实现。新规范被仔细地编写为与旧规范向后兼容，从而允许与RFC 2362兼容的实现也与新规范兼容。
The 4 implementations of the new version are described below.
新版本的4种实现如下所述。
The XORP project [XORP] has an open-source implementation of PIM-SM v2 as specified in RFC 4601. It was written by Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> and has been available to the public since December 2002. Pavlin is not an author of the protocol specification. It does not use any other existing code as a base.
XORP项目[XORP]具有RFC 4601中规定的PIM-SM v2的开源实现。它是由帕夫林·拉多斯拉沃夫写的<pavlin@icir.org>自2002年12月起向公众开放。Pavlin不是协议规范的作者。它不使用任何其他现有代码作为基础。
Cisco Systems, Inc., has written an implementation of the new protocol specification that has been deployed in production routers. There exists an IOS implementation for IPv6 only. There exists an IOX implementation for both IPv4 and IPv6. This code was initially written by Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>. It does not depend on any existing code base. Isidor is a co-author of the protocol specification.
思科系统公司（Cisco Systems，Inc.）已经编写了新协议规范的实现，该规范已部署在生产路由器中。存在仅适用于IPv6的IOS实现。IPv4和IPv6都存在IOX实现。此代码最初由Isidor Kouvelas编写<kouvelas@cisco.com>. 它不依赖于任何现有的代码库。Isidor是协议规范的共同作者。
2.4.3. Infosys Technologies, Ltd.
2.4.3. 信息系统技术有限公司。
Infosys Technologies, Ltd. (www.infosys.com), has developed a limited shared-tree implementation of the new Sparse-Mode specification including PIM Hello messages, DR election, PIM join/prune messages, join suppression, and prune override. It was written by Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com> and is used in commercial products. Bharat is not an author of the protocol specification.
Infosys Technologies，Ltd.（www.Infosys.com）开发了新稀疏模式规范的有限共享树实现，包括PIM Hello消息、DR election、PIM加入/删减消息、加入抑制和删减覆盖。这是巴拉特·乔希写的_joshi@infosys.com>用于商业产品。Bharat不是协议规范的作者。
An implementation was written from scratch at Procket Networks by Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>. This implementation is now owned by Cisco Systems, Inc. Dino is not an author of the new protocol specification.
Dino Farinaci在Procket Networks从头开始编写了一个实现<dino@cisco.com>. 此实现现在归Cisco Systems，Inc.所有。Dino不是新协议规范的作者。
The Cisco implementation has undergone extensive laboratory testing as well as testing in production deployments. It is found to interoperate with implementations of earlier versions of the PIM Sparse-Mode protocol specification.
Cisco的实施经历了广泛的实验室测试和生产部署测试。它可以与PIM稀疏模式协议规范早期版本的实现进行互操作。
The XORP PIM-SM implementation has been thoughtfully tested internally by the XORP project. The emphasis during testing has been on correctness. In a typical setup, a PIM-SM router's behavior is tested by connecting it to external packet generators and observers. The packet generators are used to generate messages such as IGMP and PIM-SM control packets, and multicast data packets. The packet observers are used to observe the PIM-SM control packets generated by the PIM-SM router under test, and to observe the data packets that may be forwarded by that router. In addition, the router's command-line interface has been used to observe its internal state during some of the tests.
XORP项目对XORP PIM-SM实现进行了深思熟虑的内部测试。测试过程中的重点一直是正确性。在典型的设置中，通过将PIM-SM路由器连接到外部数据包生成器和观察者来测试其行为。数据包生成器用于生成诸如IGMP和PIM-SM控制数据包以及多播数据包等消息。数据包观察器用于观察被测PIM-SM路由器生成的PIM-SM控制数据包，并观察该路由器可能转发的数据包。此外，路由器的命令行界面已用于在某些测试期间观察其内部状态。
The test scenarios have been designed to follow the protocol specification closely (e.g., a separate test has been created for each event in the various protocol state machines, etc). All test scenarios are described in detail in the XORP PIM-SM Test Suite [XORP-TEST].
测试场景的设计严格遵循协议规范（例如，在各种协议状态机中为每个事件创建了单独的测试等）。XORP PIM-SM测试套件[XORP-test]详细描述了所有测试场景。
The major tested features are:
主要测试功能包括：
1. Multicast data forwarding.
1. 多播数据转发。
2. PIM Hello messages exchange, PIM router neighbor discovery, option exchange, and DR election.
2. PIM Hello消息交换、PIM路由器邻居发现、选项交换和DR选择。
3. PIM Register messages transmission and reception, PIM Register state machine, and multicast data packets encapsulation and decapsulation.
3. PIM注册消息传输和接收、PIM注册状态机以及多播数据包封装和去封装。
4. Transmission and reception of PIM Join/Prune messages and upstream and downstream protocol state machines. The tests consider the following state: (*,*,RP), (*,G), (S,G), and (S,G,rpt).
4. 发送和接收PIM加入/删减消息以及上游和下游协议状态机。测试考虑以下状态：（*，*，RP），（*，G），（S，G），和（S，G，RPT）。
5. Transmission and reception of PIM Assert messages and the per-interface (*,G) and (S,G) Assert state machines.
5. 发送和接收PIM Assert消息以及per接口（*，G）和（S，G）Assert状态机。
6. PIM Bootstrap mechanism: transmission, reception, and forwarding of PIM Bootstrap messages (BSMs), transmission and reception of PIM Cand-RP-Adv messages, candidate and non-candidate Bootstrap Router (BSR) state machines, creating the RP-Set at the BSR, receiving and using the RP-Set, and semantic fragmentation of BSMs.
6. PIM引导机制：PIM引导消息（BSM）的传输、接收和转发，PIM Cand和RP Adv消息的传输和接收，候选和非候选引导路由器（BSR）状态机，在BSR创建RP集，接收和使用RP集，以及BSM的语义分段。
In the final tests, the tested router behaved as specified in the PIM-SM protocol specification. All issues found in the protocol specification itself have been corrected in earlier versions of the document.
在最终测试中，被测试路由器的行为符合PIM-SM协议规范的规定。协议规范中发现的所有问题已在本文件的早期版本中得到纠正。
The Procket Networks implementation was deployed in many research and service provider networks and showed interoperability with new and old Cisco Systems implementations as well as Juniper Networks implementations.
Procket Networks实现已部署在许多研究和服务提供商网络中，并显示了与新的和旧的Cisco系统实现以及Juniper Networks实现的互操作性。
PIM Sparse-Mode is a protocol for efficiently routing multicast groups that may span wide-area (and inter-domain) Internets. PIM uses the underlying unicast routing to provide reverse-path information for multicast tree building, but it is not dependent on any particular unicast routing protocol.
PIM稀疏模式是一种有效路由可能跨越广域（和域间）互联网的多播组的协议。PIM使用底层单播路由为多播树的构建提供反向路径信息，但它不依赖于任何特定的单播路由协议。
PIM specifies the use of the IP security (IPsec) authentication header (AH) to provide data integrity protection and groupwise data origin authentication of protocol messages. The specific AH authentication algorithm and parameters, including the choice of authentication algorithm and the choice of key, are configured by the network administrator. The threats associated with receiving forged PIM messages are outlined in the security considerations section of the protocol specification.
PIM指定使用IP安全（IPsec）身份验证头（AH）来提供协议消息的数据完整性保护和分组数据源身份验证。具体的AH认证算法和参数，包括认证算法的选择和密钥的选择，由网络管理员配置。协议规范的安全注意事项部分概述了与接收伪造PIM消息相关的威胁。
No considerations apply to a requirements analysis about a routing protocol, only to a specification for that routing protocol.
对于路由协议的需求分析，没有考虑因素，只考虑该路由协议的规范。
Pavlin Radoslavov provided text for the section on XORP testing. Dino Farinacci provided text for the Procket Networks testing.
Pavlin Radoslavov为XORP测试部分提供了文本。Dino Farinaci为Procket网络测试提供了文本。
[RFC2934] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., Thaler, D., and B. Fenner, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4", RFC 2934, October 2000.
[RFC2934]McCloghrie，K.，Farinaci，D.，Thaler，D.，和B.Fenner，“IPv4协议独立多播MIB”，RFC 2934，2000年10月。
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4601]Fenner，B.，Handley，M.，Holbrook，H.，和I.Kouvelas，“协议独立多播-稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范（修订版）”，RFC 46012006年8月。
[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264, October 1991.
[RFC1264]Hinden，R.，“互联网工程任务组互联网路由协议标准化标准”，RFC 1264，1991年10月。
[RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
[RFC2117]Estrin，D.，Farinaci，D.，Helmy，A.，Thaler，D.，Deering，S.，Handley，M.，Jacobson，V.，Liu，C.，Sharma，P.，和L.Wei，“协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范”，RFC 21171997年6月。
[RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998.
[RFC2362]Estrin，D.，Farinaci，D.，Helmy，A.，Thaler，D.，Deering，S.，Handley，M.，Jacobson，V.，Liu，C.，Sharma，P.，和L.Wei，“协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范”，RFC 2362，1998年6月。
[XORP] "XORP Project", <http://www.xorp.org>.
[XORP]“XORP项目”<http://www.xorp.org>.
[XORP-TEST] "XORP PIM-SM Test Suite", <http://www.xorp.org/releases/ current/docs/pim_testsuite/pim_testsuite.pdf>.
[XORP-TEST]“XORP PIM-SM测试套件”<http://www.xorp.org/releases/ 当前/docs/pim_testsuite/pim_testsuite.pdf>。
Author's Address
作者地址
Tom Pusateri Juniper Networks 1194 North Mathilda Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
美国加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔北马蒂尔达大道1194号汤姆·普萨特里·朱尼珀网络公司，邮编94089
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
EMail: pusateri@juniper.net
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
EMail: pusateri@juniper.net
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。