RFC8293: A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3

Download in PDF format Download in text format

Related keywords:  (Geneve) (NVGRE) (nvo3) (VXLAN)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       A. Ghanwani
Request for Comments: 8293                                          Dell
Category: Informational                                        L. Dunbar
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               M. McBride
                                                               V. Bannai
                                                             R. Krishnan
                                                            January 2018

    A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3


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

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

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

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

1.  Introduction

   Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) [RFC7365] is a technology
   that is used to address issues that arise in building large, multi-
   tenant data centers (DCs) that make extensive use of server
   virtualization [RFC7364].

   This document provides a framework for supporting multicast traffic
   in a network that uses NVO3.  Both infrastructure multicast and
   application-specific multicast are considered.  It describes various
   mechanisms, and the considerations of each of them, that can be used
   for delivering such traffic in networks that use NVO3.

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
   concepts as defined in the NVO3 Framework [RFC7365] and NVO3
   Architecture [RFC8014] documents.

1.1.  Infrastructure Multicast

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

   Of course, it is possible to support all of these infrastructure
   multicast protocols natively if the underlay provides multicast
   transport.  However, even in the presence of multicast transport, it
   may be beneficial to use the optimizations mentioned above to reduce
   the amount of such traffic in the network.

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

1.2.  Application-Specific Multicast

   Application-specific multicast traffic refers to multicast traffic
   that originates and is consumed by user applications.  Several such
   applications are described elsewhere [DC-MC].  Application-specific
   multicast may be either Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) or Any-Source
   Multicast (ASM) [RFC3569] and has the following characteristics:

   1.  Receiver hosts are expected to subscribe to multicast content
       using protocols such as IGMP [RFC3376] (IPv4) or Multicast
       Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] (IPv6).  Multicast sources and
       listeners participate in these protocols using addresses that are
       in the TS address domain.

   2.  The set of multicast listeners for each multicast group may not
       be known in advance.  Therefore, it may not be possible or
       practical for an NVA to get the list of participants for each
       multicast group ahead of time.

2.  Terminology and Abbreviations

   In this document, the terms host, Tenant System (TS), and Virtual
   Machine (VM) are used interchangeably to represent an end station
   that originates or consumes data packets.

   ASM:  Any-Source Multicast

   IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol

   LISP: Locator/ID Separation Protocol

   MSN:  Multicast Service Node

   RLOC: Routing Locator

   NVA:  Network Virtualization Authority

   NVE:  Network Virtualization Edge

   NVGRE:  Network Virtualization using GRE

   PIM:  Protocol-Independent Multicast

   SSM:  Source-Specific Multicast

   TS:   Tenant System

   VM:   Virtual Machine

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

   VN:   Virtual Network

   VTEP: VXLAN Tunnel End Point

   VXLAN:  Virtual eXtensible LAN

3.  Multicast Mechanisms in Networks That Use NVO3

   In NVO3 environments, traffic between NVEs is transported using an
   encapsulation such as VXLAN [RFC7348] [VXLAN-GPE], Network
   Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE) [RFC7637],
   Geneve [Geneve], Generic UDP Encapsulation [GUE], etc.

   What makes networks using NVO3 different from other networks is that
   some NVEs, especially NVEs implemented in servers, might not support
   regular multicast protocols such as PIM.  Instead, the only
   capability they may support would be that of encapsulating data
   packets from VMs with an outer unicast header.  Therefore, it is
   important for networks using NVO3 to have mechanisms to support
   multicast as a network capability for NVEs, to map multicast traffic
   from VMs (users/applications) to an equivalent multicast capability
   inside the NVE, or to figure out the outer destination address if NVE
   does not support native multicast (e.g., PIM) or IGMP.

   With NVO3, there are many possible ways that multicast may be handled
   in such networks.  We discuss some of the attributes of the following
   four methods:

   1.  No multicast support

   2.  Replication at the source NVE

   3.  Replication at a multicast service node

   4.  IP multicast in the underlay

   These methods are briefly mentioned in the NVO3 Framework [RFC7365]
   and NVO3 Architecture [RFC8014] documents.  This document provides
   more details about the basic mechanisms underlying each of these
   methods and discusses the issues and trade-offs of each.

   We note that other methods are also possible, such as [EDGE-REP], but
   we focus on the above four because they are the most common.

   It is worth noting that when selecting a multicast mechanism, it is
   useful to consider the impact of these on any multicast congestion
   control mechanisms that applications may be using to obtain the
   desired system dynamics.  In addition, the same rules for Explicit

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

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

3.1.  No Multicast Support

   In this scenario, there is no support whatsoever for multicast
   traffic when using the overlay.  This method can only work if the
   following conditions are met:

   1.  All of the application traffic in the network is unicast traffic,
       and the only multicast/broadcast traffic is from ARP/ND

   2.  An NVA is used by all of the NVEs to determine the mapping of a
       given TS's MAC and IP address to the NVE that it is attached to.
       In other words, there is no data-plane learning.  Address
       resolution requests via ARP/ND that are issued by the TSs must be
       resolved by the NVE that they are attached to.

   With this approach, it is not possible to support application-
   specific multicast.  However, certain multicast/broadcast
   applications can be supported without multicast; for example, DHCP,
   which can be supported by use of DHCP relay function [RFC2131].

   The main drawback of this approach, even for unicast traffic, is that
   it is not possible to initiate communication with a TS for which a
   mapping to an NVE does not already exist at the NVA.  This is a
   problem in the case where the NVE is implemented in a physical switch
   and the TS is a physical end station that has not registered with the

3.2.  Replication at the Source NVE

   With this method, the overlay attempts to provide a multicast service
   without requiring any specific support from the underlay, other than
   that of a unicast service.  A multicast or broadcast transmission is
   achieved by replicating the packet at the source NVE and making
   copies, one for each destination NVE that the multicast packet must
   be sent to.

   For this mechanism to work, the source NVE must know, a priori, the
   IP addresses of all destination NVEs that need to receive the packet.
   For the purpose of ARP/ND, this would involve knowing the IP
   addresses of all the NVEs that have TSs in the VN of the TS that
   generated the request.

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

   For the support of application-specific multicast traffic, a method
   similar to that of receiver-sites registration for a particular
   multicast group, described in [LISP-Signal-Free], can be used.  The
   registrations from different receiver sites can be merged at the NVA,
   which can construct a multicast replication list inclusive of all
   NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast group are
   attached.  The replication list for each specific multicast group is
   maintained by the NVA.  Note that using receiver-sites registration
   does not necessarily mean the source NVE must do replication.  If the
   NVA indicates that multicast packets are encapsulated to multicast
   service nodes, then there would be no replication at the NVE.

   The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing
   IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain the state for which attached TSs have
   subscribed to a given IP multicast group.  When the members of a
   multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3
   gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.
   The NVEs and NVO3 gateways then communicate with the multicast groups
   that are of interest to the NVA.  If the membership is not
   communicated to the NVA, and if it is necessary to prevent TSs
   attached to an NVE that have not subscribed to a multicast group from
   receiving the multicast traffic, the NVE would need to maintain
   multicast group membership information.

   In the absence of IGMP/MLD snooping, the traffic would be delivered
   to all TSs that are part of the VN.

   In multihoming environments, i.e., in those where a TS is attached to
   more than one NVE, the NVA would be expected to provide information
   to all of the NVEs under its control about all of the NVEs to which
   such a TS is attached.  The ingress NVE can then choose any one of
   those NVEs as the egress NVE for the data frames destined towards the
   multi-homed TS.

   This method requires multiple copies of the same packet to all NVEs
   that participate in the VN.  If, for example, a tenant subnet is
   spread across 50 NVEs, the packet would have to be replicated 50
   times at the source NVE.  Obviously, this approach creates more
   traffic to the network that can cause congestion when the network
   load is high.  This also creates an issue with the forwarding
   performance of the NVE.

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

   Note that this method is similar to what was used in Virtual Private
   LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4762] prior to support of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) multicast [RFC7117].  While there are some
   similarities between MPLS Virtual Private Network (VPN) and NVO3,
   there are some key differences:

   o  The attachment from Customer Edge (CE) to Provider Edge (PE) in
      VPNs is somewhat static, whereas in a DC that allows VMs to
      migrate anywhere, the TS attachment to NVE is much more dynamic.

   o  The number of PEs to which a single VPN customer is attached in an
      MPLS VPN environment is normally far less than the number of NVEs
      to which a VN's VMs are attached in a DC.

   When a VPN customer has multiple multicast groups, "Multicast VPN"
   [RFC6513] combines all those multicast groups within each VPN client
   to one single multicast group in the MPLS (or VPN) core.  The result
   is that messages from any of the multicast groups belonging to one
   VPN customer will reach all the PE nodes of the client.  In other
   words, any messages belonging to any multicast groups under customer
   X will reach all PEs of the customer X.  When the customer X is
   attached to only a handful of PEs, the use of this approach does not
   result in an excessive waste of bandwidth in the provider's network.

   In a DC environment, a typical hypervisor-based virtual switch may
   only support on the order of 10's of VMs (as of this writing).  A
   subnet with N VMs may be, in the worst case, spread across N virtual
   switches (vSwitches).  Using an "MPLS VPN multicast" approach in such
   a scenario would require the creation of a multicast group in the
   core in order for the VN to reach all N NVEs.  If only a small
   percentage of this client's VMs participate in application-specific
   multicast, a great number of NVEs will receive multicast traffic that
   is not forwarded to any of their attached VMs, resulting in a
   considerable waste of bandwidth.

   Therefore, the multicast VPN solution may not scale in a DC
   environment with the dynamic attachment of VNs to NVEs and a greater
   number of NVEs for each VN.

3.3.  Replication at a Multicast Service Node

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

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

   This mechanism is similar to that used by the Asynchronous Transfer
   Mode (ATM) Forum's LAN Emulation (LANE) specification [LANE].  The
   MSN is similar to the Rendezvous Point (RP) in Protocol Independent
   Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), but different in that the user data
   traffic is carried by the NVO3 tunnels.

   The following are possible ways for the MSN to get the membership
   information for each multicast group:

   o  The MSN can obtain this membership information from the IGMP/MLD
      report messages sent by TSs in response to IGMP/MLD query messages
      from the MSN.  The IGMP/MLD query messages are sent from the MSN
      to the NVEs, which then forward the query messages to TSs attached
      to them.  An IGMP/MLD query message sent out by the MSN to an NVE
      is encapsulated with the MSN address in the outer IP source
      address field and the address of the NVE in the outer IP
      destination address field.  An encapsulated IGMP/MLD query message
      also has a virtual network (VN) identifier (corresponding to the
      VN that the TSs belong to) in the outer header and a multicast
      address in the inner IP destination address field.  Upon receiving
      the encapsulated IGMP/MLD query message, the NVE establishes a
      mapping for "MSN address" to "multicast address", decapsulates the
      received encapsulated IGMP/MLD message, and multicasts the
      decapsulated query message to the TSs that belong to the VN
      attached to that NVE.  An IGMP/MLD report message sent by a TS
      includes the multicast address and the address of the TS.  With
      the proper "MSN address" to "multicast address" mapping, the NVEs
      can encapsulate all multicast data frames containing the
      "multicast address" with the address of the MSN in the outer IP
      destination address field.

   o  The MSN can obtain the membership information from the NVEs that
      have the capability to establish multicast groups by snooping
      native IGMP/MLD messages (note that the communication must be
      specific to the multicast addresses) or by having the NVA obtain
      the information from the NVEs and in turn have MSN communicate
      with the NVA.  This approach requires additional protocol between
      MSN and NVEs.

   Unlike the method described in Section 3.2, there is no performance
   impact at the ingress NVE, nor are there any issues with multiple
   copies of the same packet from the source NVE to the MSN.  However,
   there remain issues with multiple copies of the same packet on links
   that are common to the paths from the MSN to each of the egress NVEs.
   Additional issues that are introduced with this method include the
   availability of the MSN, methods to scale the services offered by the
   MSN, and the suboptimality of the delivery paths.

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

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

3.4.  IP Multicast in the Underlay

   In this method, the underlay supports IP multicast and the ingress
   NVE encapsulates the packet with the appropriate IP multicast address
   in the tunnel encapsulation header for delivery to the desired set of
   NVEs.  The protocol in the underlay could be any variant of PIM, or a
   protocol-dependent multicast, such as [ISIS-Multicast].

   If an NVE connects to its attached TSs via a Layer 2 network, there
   are multiple ways for NVEs to support the application-specific

   o  The NVE only supports the basic IGMP/MLD snooping function, while
      the "TS routers" handle the application-specific multicast.  This
      scheme doesn't utilize the underlay IP multicast protocols.
      Instead routers, which are themselves TSs attached to the NVE,
      would handle multicast protocols for the application-specific
      multicast.  We refer to such routers as TS routers.

   o  The NVE can act as a pseudo multicast router for the directly
      attached TSs and support the mapping of IGMP/MLD messages to the
      messages needed by the underlay IP multicast protocols.

   With this method, there are none of the issues with the methods
   described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 with respect to scaling and
   congestion.  Instead, there are other issues described below.

   With PIM-SM, the number of flows required would be (n*g), where n is
   the number of source NVEs that source packets for the group, and g is
   the number of groups.  Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR-PIM) would offer
   better scalability with the number of flows required being g.
   Unfortunately, many vendors still do not fully support BIDIR or have
   limitations on its implementation.  [RFC6831] describes the use of
   SSM as an alternative to BIDIR, provided that the NVEs have a way to
   learn of each other's IP addresses so that they can join all of the
   SSM Shortest Path Trees (SPTs) to create/maintain an underlay SSM IP
   multicast tunnel solution.

   In the absence of any additional mechanism (e.g., using an NVA for
   address resolution), for optimal delivery, there would have to be a
   separate group for each VN for infrastructure multicast plus a
   separate group for each application-specific multicast address within
   a tenant.

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

   An additional consideration is that only the lower 23 bits of the IP
   address (regardless of whether IPv4 or IPv6 is in use) are mapped to
   the outer MAC address, and if there is equipment that prunes
   multicasts at Layer 2, there will be some aliasing.

   Finally, a mechanism to efficiently provision such addresses for each
   group would be required.

   There are additional optimizations that are possible, but they come
   with their own restrictions.  For example, a set of tenants may be
   restricted to some subset of NVEs, and they could all share the same
   outer IP multicast group address.  This, however, introduces a
   problem of suboptimal delivery (even if a particular tenant within
   the group of tenants doesn't have a presence on one of the NVEs that
   another one does, the multicast packets would still be delivered to
   that NVE).  It also introduces an additional network management
   burden to optimize which tenants should be part of the same tenant
   group (based on the NVEs they share), which somewhat dilutes the
   value proposition of NVO3 (to completely decouple the overlay and
   physical network design allowing complete freedom of placement of VMs
   anywhere within the DC).

   Multicast schemes such as Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER)
   [RFC8279] may be able to provide optimizations by allowing the
   underlay network to provide optimum multicast delivery without
   requiring routers in the core of the network to maintain per-
   multicast group state.

3.5.  Other Schemes

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

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

4.  Simultaneous Use of More Than One Mechanism

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

5.  Other Issues

5.1.  Multicast-Agnostic NVEs

   Some hypervisor-based NVEs do not process or recognize IGMP/MLD
   frames, i.e., those NVEs simply encapsulate the IGMP/MLD messages in
   the same way as they do for regular data frames.

   By default, a TS router periodically sends IGMP/MLD query messages to
   all the hosts in the subnet to trigger the hosts that are interested
   in the multicast stream to send back IGMP/MLD reports.  In order for
   the MSN to get the updated multicast group information, the MSN can
   also send the IGMP/MLD query message comprising a client-specific
   multicast address encapsulated in an overlay header to all of the
   NVEs to which the TSs in the VN are attached.

   However, the MSN may not always be aware of the client-specific
   multicast addresses.  In order to perform multicast filtering, the
   MSN has to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
   corresponding routers to maintain the multicast membership.  In order
   for the MSN to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
   router, the NVA needs to configure the NVE to send copies of the
   IGMP/MLD messages to the MSN in addition to the default behavior of
   sending them to the TSs' routers; e.g., the NVA has to inform the
   NVEs to encapsulate data frames with the Destination Address (DA)
   being (DA of IGMP report) to the TSs' router and MSN.

   This process is similar to "Source Replication" described in
   Section 3.2, except the NVEs only replicate the message to the TSs'
   router and MSN.

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

5.2.  Multicast Membership Management for DC with VMs

   For DCs with virtualized servers, VMs can be added, deleted, or moved
   very easily.  When VMs are added, deleted, or moved, the NVEs to
   which the VMs are attached are changed.

   When a VM is deleted from an NVE or a new VM is added to an NVE, the
   VM management system should notify the MSN to send the IGMP/MLD query
   messages to the relevant NVEs (as described in Section 3.3) so that
   the multicast membership can be updated promptly.

   Otherwise, if there are changes of VMs attachment to NVEs (within the
   duration of the configured default time interval that the TSs routers
   use for IGMP/MLD queries), multicast data may not reach the VM(s)
   that moved.

6.  Security Considerations

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

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.

8.  Summary

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

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and
              A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol,
              Version 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,

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

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

   [RFC7364]  Narten, T., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., Black, D., Fang, L.,
              Kreeger, L., and M. Napierala, "Problem Statement:
              Overlays for Network Virtualization", RFC 7364,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7364, October 2014,

   [RFC7365]  Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and
              Y. Rekhter, "Framework for Data Center (DC) Network
              Virtualization", RFC 7365, DOI 10.17487/RFC7365, October
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7365>.

   [RFC8014]  Black, D., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Lasserre, M., and
              T. Narten, "An Architecture for Data-Center Network
              Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)", RFC 8014,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8014, December 2016,

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,

   [RFC3569]  Bhattacharyya, S., Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
              Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, DOI 10.17487/RFC3569, July
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3569>.

   [RFC3819]  Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
              Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and
              L. Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers",
              BCP 89, RFC 3819, DOI 10.17487/RFC3819, July 2004,

   [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
              LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
              Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.

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

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
              2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

   [RFC7117]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
              C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,

   [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
              Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
              RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,

   [DC-MC]    McBride, M. and H. Liu, "Multicast in the Data Center
              Overview", Work in Progress, draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-
              overview-02, July 2012.

   [EDGE-REP] Marques, P., Fang, L., Winkworth, D., Cai, Y., and
              P. Lapukhov, "Edge multicast replication for BGP IP
              VPNs.", Work in Progress, draft-marques-l3vpn-
              mcast-edge-01, June 2012.

   [Geneve]   Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
              Network Virtualization Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-05, September 2017.

   [GUE]      Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
              Encapsulation", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-intarea-gue-05, December 2017.

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

              Yong, L., Weiguo, H., Eastlake, D., Qu, A., Hudson, J.,
              and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Protocol Extension For Building
              Distribution Trees", Work in Progress,
              draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-03, October 2014.

   [LANE]     ATM Forum, "LAN Emulation Over ATM: Version 1.0", ATM
              Forum Technical Committee, af-lane-0021.000, January 1995.

              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-
              multicast-07, November 2017.

              Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
              Extension for VXLAN", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05, October 2017.

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


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

Authors' Addresses

   Anoop Ghanwani

   Email: anoop@alumni.duke.edu

   Linda Dunbar
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 1750
   Plano, TX  75024
   United States of America

   Phone: (469) 277 5840
   Email: ldunbar@huawei.com

   Mike McBride
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: mmcbride7@gmail.com

   Vinay Bannai

   Email: vbannai@gmail.com

   Ram Krishnan

   Email: ramkri123@gmail.com

Ghanwani, et al.              Informational                    [Page 17]