draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-07.txt
	Network Working Group D. Farinacci		Network Working Group D. Farinacci
	Internet-Draft D. Meyer		Internet-Draft D. Meyer
	Intended status: Experimental J. Zwiebel		Intended status: Experimental J. Zwiebel
	Expires: December 22, 2011 S. Venaas		Expires: January 10, 2012 S. Venaas
	cisco Systems		cisco Systems
	June 20, 2011		July 9, 2011
	LISP for Multicast Environments		LISP for Multicast Environments
	draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06		draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This draft describes how inter-domain multicast routing will function		This draft describes how inter-domain multicast routing will function
	in an environment where Locator/ID Separation is deployed using the		in an environment where Locator/ID Separation is deployed using the
	LISP architecture.		LISP architecture.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2012.
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2011.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Source Addresses versus Group Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. Source Addresses versus Group Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Locator Reachability Implications on LISP-Multicast . . . . . 14		6. Locator Reachability Implications on LISP-Multicast . . . . . 13
	7. Multicast Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. Multicast Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. LISP-Multicast Data-Plane Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8. LISP-Multicast Data-Plane Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8.1. ITR Forwarding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8.1. ITR Forwarding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8.1.1. Multiple RLOCs for an ITR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8.1.1. Multiple RLOCs for an ITR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8.1.2. Multiple ITRs for a LISP Source Site . . . . . . . . . 18		8.1.2. Multiple ITRs for a LISP Source Site . . . . . . . . . 17
	8.2. ETR Forwarding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		8.2. ETR Forwarding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	8.3. Replication Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		8.3. Replication Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9. LISP-Multicast Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		9. LISP-Multicast Interworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	9.1. LISP and non-LISP Mixed Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		9.1. LISP and non-LISP Mixed Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	9.1.1. LISP Source Site to non-LISP Receiver Sites . . . . . 21		9.1.1. LISP Source Site to non-LISP Receiver Sites . . . . . 20
	9.1.2. Non-LISP Source Site to non-LISP Receiver Sites . . . 22		9.1.2. Non-LISP Source Site to non-LISP Receiver Sites . . . 21
	9.1.3. Non-LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Site . . . . . . 23		9.1.3. Non-LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Site . . . . . . 22
	9.1.4. Unicast LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Sites . . . . 24		9.1.4. Unicast LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Sites . . . . 23
	9.1.5. LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Sites . . . . . . . . 24		9.1.5. LISP Source Site to Any Receiver Sites . . . . . . . . 23
	9.2. LISP Sites with Mixed Address Families . . . . . . . . . . 25		9.2. LISP Sites with Mixed Address Families . . . . . . . . . . 24
	9.3. Making a Multicast Interworking Decision . . . . . . . . . 27		9.3. Making a Multicast Interworking Decision . . . . . . . . . 26
	10. Considerations when RP Addresses are Embedded in Group		10. Considerations when RP Addresses are Embedded in Group
	Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	11. Taking Advantage of Upgrades in the Core . . . . . . . . . . . 29		11. Taking Advantage of Upgrades in the Core . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	12. Mtrace Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		12. Mtrace Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
			16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt . . . . . . . 35		A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-07.txt . . . . . . . 35
	A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-05.txt . . . . . . . 35		A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt . . . . . . . 35
	A.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-04.txt . . . . . . . 35		A.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-05.txt . . . . . . . 35
	A.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-03.txt . . . . . . . 35		A.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-04.txt . . . . . . . 35
	A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt . . . . . . . 36		A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-03.txt . . . . . . . 35
	A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-01.txt . . . . . . . 36		A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt . . . . . . . 36
	A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-00.txt . . . . . . . 36		A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-01.txt . . . . . . . 36
			A.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-00.txt . . . . . . . 36
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	1. Requirements Notation		1. Requirements Notation
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	2. Introduction		2. Introduction
	skipping to change at page 12, line 6		skipping to change at page 11, line 6
	because it would not have joined. The ETR decapsulates and does		because it would not have joined. The ETR decapsulates and does
	a (S-EID,G) lookup in its multicast FIB to forward packets out		a (S-EID,G) lookup in its multicast FIB to forward packets out
	one or more interfaces to forward the packet to internal		one or more interfaces to forward the packet to internal
	receivers.		receivers.
	This architecture is consistent and scalable with the architecture		This architecture is consistent and scalable with the architecture
	presented in [LISP] where multicast state in the core operates on		presented in [LISP] where multicast state in the core operates on
	locators and multicast state at the sites operates on EIDs.		locators and multicast state at the sites operates on EIDs.
	Alternatively, [LISP] also has a mechanism where (S-EID,G) state can		Alternatively, [LISP] also has a mechanism where (S-EID,G) state can
	reside in the core through the use of RPF-vectors [RPFV] in PIM Join/		reside in the core through the use of RPF-vectors [RFC5496] in PIM
	Prune messages. However, few PIM implementations support RPF vectors		Join/Prune messages. However, few PIM implementations support RPF
	and LISP should avoid S-EID state in the core. See Section 5 for		vectors and LISP should avoid S-EID state in the core. See Section 5
	details.		for details.
	However, we have some observations on the algorithm above. We can		However, we have some observations on the algorithm above. We can
	scale the control plane but at the expense of sending data to sites		scale the control plane but at the expense of sending data to sites
	which may have not joined the distribution tree where the		which may have not joined the distribution tree where the
	encapsulated data is being delivered. For example, one site joins		encapsulated data is being delivered. For example, one site joins
	(S-EID1,G) and another site joins (S-EID2,G). Both EIDs are in the		(S-EID1,G) and another site joins (S-EID2,G). Both EIDs are in the
	same multicast source site. Both multicast receiver sites join to		same multicast source site. Both multicast receiver sites join to
	the same ITR with state (S-RLOC,G) where S-RLOC is the RLOC for the		the same ITR with state (S-RLOC,G) where S-RLOC is the RLOC for the
	ITR. The ITR joins both (S-EID1,G) and (S-EID2,G) inside of the		ITR. The ITR joins both (S-EID1,G) and (S-EID2,G) inside of the
	site. The ITR receives (S-RLOC,G) joins and populates the oif-list		site. The ITR receives (S-RLOC,G) joins and populates the oif-list
	skipping to change at page 16, line 8		skipping to change at page 15, line 8
	of by looking in the mapping database service.		of by looking in the mapping database service.
	PIM-SSM: In the simplest form of distribution tree building, when		PIM-SSM: In the simplest form of distribution tree building, when
	PIM operates in SSM mode, a source distribution tree is built and		PIM operates in SSM mode, a source distribution tree is built and
	maintained across site boundaries. In this case, there is a small		maintained across site boundaries. In this case, there is a small
	modification to the operation of the PIM protocol (but not to any		modification to the operation of the PIM protocol (but not to any
	message format) to support taking a Join/Prune message originated		message format) to support taking a Join/Prune message originated
	inside of a LISP site with embedded addresses from the EID		inside of a LISP site with embedded addresses from the EID
	namespace and converting them to addresses from the RLOC namespace		namespace and converting them to addresses from the RLOC namespace
	when the Join/Prune message crosses a site boundary. This is		when the Join/Prune message crosses a site boundary. This is
	similar to the requirements documented in [MNAT].		similar to the requirements documented in [RFC5135].
	PIM-Bidir: Bidirectional PIM is typically run inside of a routing		PIM-Bidir: Bidirectional PIM is typically run inside of a routing
	domain, but if deployed in an inter-domain environment, one would		domain, but if deployed in an inter-domain environment, one would
	have to decide if the RP address of the shared-tree would be from		have to decide if the RP address of the shared-tree would be from
	the EID namespace or the RLOC namespace. If the RP resides in a		the EID namespace or the RLOC namespace. If the RP resides in a
	site-based router, then the RP address is from the EID namespace.		site-based router, then the RP address is from the EID namespace.
	If the RP resides in the core where RLOC addresses are routed,		If the RP resides in the core where RLOC addresses are routed,
	then the RP address is from the RLOC namespace. This could be		then the RP address is from the RLOC namespace. This could be
	easily distinguishable if the EID address were well-known address		easily distinguishable if the EID address were well-known address
	allocation block from the RLOC namespace. Also, when using		allocation block from the RLOC namespace. Also, when using
	skipping to change at page 29, line 7		skipping to change at page 28, line 7
	to the ITR is created.		to the ITR is created.
	This technique is no different than the techniques described in this		This technique is no different than the techniques described in this
	specification for translating (S,G) state and propagating Join/Prune		specification for translating (S,G) state and propagating Join/Prune
	messages into the core. The only difference is that the (*,G) state		messages into the core. The only difference is that the (*,G) state
	in Join/Prune messages are mapped because they contain unicast		in Join/Prune messages are mapped because they contain unicast
	addresses encoded in an Embedded-RP group address.		addresses encoded in an Embedded-RP group address.
	11. Taking Advantage of Upgrades in the Core		11. Taking Advantage of Upgrades in the Core
	If the core routers are upgraded to support [RPFV] and [RFC5496],		If the core routers are upgraded to support [RFC5496], then we can
	then we can pass EID specific data through the core without,		pass EID specific data through the core without, possibly, having to
	possibly, having to store the state in the core.		store the state in the core.
	By doing this we can eliminate the ETR from unicast encapsulating PIM		By doing this we can eliminate the ETR from unicast encapsulating PIM
	Join/Prune messages to the source site's ITR.		Join/Prune messages to the source site's ITR.
	However, this solution is restricted to a small set of workable cases		However, this solution is restricted to a small set of workable cases
	which would not be good for general use of LISP-Multicast. In		which would not be good for general use of LISP-Multicast. In
	addition due to slow convergence properties, it is not being		addition due to slow convergence properties, it is not being
	recommended for LISP-Multicast.		recommended for LISP-Multicast.
	12. Mtrace Considerations		12. Mtrace Considerations
	skipping to change at page 33, line 5		skipping to change at page 32, line 5
	Tom Pusateri, Steve Casner, Marshall Eubanks, Dimitri Papadimitriou,		Tom Pusateri, Steve Casner, Marshall Eubanks, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
	Ron Bonica, Lenny Guardino, Alia Atlas, and Jesus Arango.		Ron Bonica, Lenny Guardino, Alia Atlas, and Jesus Arango.
	An expert review of this specification was done by Yiqun Cai and		An expert review of this specification was done by Yiqun Cai and
	Liming Wei. We thank them for their detailed comments.		Liming Wei. We thank them for their detailed comments.
	This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.		This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
	The individual submission [MLISP] was converted into this IETF LISP		The individual submission [MLISP] was converted into this IETF LISP
	working group draft.		working group draft.
	15. References		15. IANA Considerations
	15.1. Normative References		This document makes no request of the IANA.
			16. References
			16.1. Normative References
	[LISP] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,		[LISP] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
	"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",		"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
	draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt (work in progress), June 2011.		draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt (work in progress).
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery		[RFC3618] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery
	Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.		Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.
	[RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous		[RFC3956] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous
	Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address",		Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address",
	RFC 3956, November 2004.		RFC 3956, November 2004.
	skipping to change at page 33, line 43		skipping to change at page 33, line 43
	IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.		IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
	[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,		[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
	"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,		"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
	January 2007.		January 2007.
	[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,		[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
	"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-		"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
	PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.		PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
			[RFC5135] Wing, D. and T. Eckert, "IP Multicast Requirements for a
			Network Address Translator (NAT) and a Network Address
			Port Translator (NAPT)", BCP 135, RFC 5135, February 2008.
	[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path		[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
	Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.		Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.
	15.2. Informative References		16.2. Informative References
	[ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP Alternative		[ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP Alternative
	Topology (LISP-ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-06.txt (work in		Topology (LISP-ALT)", draft-ietf-lisp-alt-07.txt (work in
	progress), March 2011.		progress).
	[INTWORK] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and D. Farinacci, "Interworking LISP		[INTWORK] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and D. Farinacci, "Interworking LISP
	with IPv4 and IPv6", draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02.txt		with IPv4 and IPv6", draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02.txt
	(work in progress), March 2011.		(work in progress).
	[MLISP] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,		[MLISP] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
	"LISP for Multicast Environments",		"LISP for Multicast Environments",
	draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt (work in progress),		draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt (work in progress).
	November 2008.
	[MNAT] Wing, D. and T. Eckert, "Multicast Requirements for a
	Network Address (and port) Translator (NAT)",
	draft-ietf-behave-multicast-07.txt (work in progress),
	June 2007.
	[MTRACE] Asaeda, H., Jinmei, T., Fenner, W., and S. Casner, "Mtrace		[MTRACE] Asaeda, H., Jinmei, T., Fenner, W., and S. Casner, "Mtrace
	Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast",		Version 2: Traceroute Facility for IP Multicast",
	draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-03.txt (work in progress),		draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-08.txt (work in progress).
	March 2009.
	[RPFV] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The RPF Vector
	TLV", draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06.txt (work in progress),
	February 2008.
	Appendix A. Document Change Log		Appendix A. Document Change Log
	A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt		A.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-07.txt
			o Posted July 2011. Fixing IDnits errors.
			A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-06.txt
	o Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.		o Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.
	o Added paragraph to section 8.1.2 based on Jesus comment about		o Added paragraph to section 8.1.2 based on Jesus comment about
	making it more clear what happens when two (S-EID,G) trees use the		making it more clear what happens when two (S-EID,G) trees use the
	same (RLOC,G) tree.		same (RLOC,G) tree.
	o Make more references to [INTWORK] when mentioning uPITRs and		o Make more references to [INTWORK] when mentioning uPITRs and
	uPETRs.		uPETRs.
	o Made many changes based on editorial and wordsmithing comments		o Made many changes based on editorial and wordsmithing comments
	from Alia.		from Alia.
	A.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-05.txt		A.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-05.txt
	o Posted April 2011 to reset expiration timer.		o Posted April 2011 to reset expiration timer.
	o Updated references.		o Updated references.
	A.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-04.txt		A.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-04.txt
	o Posted October 2010 to reset expiration timer.		o Posted October 2010 to reset expiration timer.
	o Updated references.		o Updated references.
	A.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-03.txt		A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-03.txt
	o Posted April 2010.		o Posted April 2010.
	o Added section 8.1.2 to address Joel Halpern's comment about		o Added section 8.1.2 to address Joel Halpern's comment about
	receiver sites joining the same source site via 2 different RLOCs,		receiver sites joining the same source site via 2 different RLOCs,
	each being a separate ITR.		each being a separate ITR.
	o Change all occurences of "mPTR" to "mPETR" to become more		o Change all occurences of "mPTR" to "mPETR" to become more
	consistent with uPITRs and uPETRs described in [INTWORK]. That		consistent with uPITRs and uPETRs described in [INTWORK]. That
	is, an mPETR is a LISP multicast router that decapsulates		is, an mPETR is a LISP multicast router that decapsulates
	skipping to change at page 36, line 8		skipping to change at page 36, line 10
	source sites.		source sites.
	o Add clarifications in section 9 about how homogeneous multicast		o Add clarifications in section 9 about how homogeneous multicast
	encapsulation should occur. As well as describing in this		encapsulation should occur. As well as describing in this
	section, how to deal with mixed-locator sets to avoid		section, how to deal with mixed-locator sets to avoid
	heterogeneous encapsulation.		heterogeneous encapsulation.
	o Introduce concept of mPITRs to help reduce (S-EID,G) to the edges		o Introduce concept of mPITRs to help reduce (S-EID,G) to the edges
	of LISP global multicast network.		of LISP global multicast network.
	A.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt		A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-02.txt
	o Posted September 2009.		o Posted September 2009.
	o Added Document Change Log appendix.		o Added Document Change Log appendix.
	o Specify that the LISP Encapsulated Control Message be used for		o Specify that the LISP Encapsulated Control Message be used for
	unicasting PIM Join/Prune messages from ETRs to ITRs.		unicasting PIM Join/Prune messages from ETRs to ITRs.
	A.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-01.txt		A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-01.txt
	o Posted November 2008.		o Posted November 2008.
	o Specified that PIM Join/Prune unicast messages that get sent from		o Specified that PIM Join/Prune unicast messages that get sent from
	ETRs to ITRs of a source multicast site get LISP encapsulated in		ETRs to ITRs of a source multicast site get LISP encapsulated in
	destination UDP port 4342.		destination UDP port 4342.
	o Add multiple RLOCs per ITR per Yiqun's comments.		o Add multiple RLOCs per ITR per Yiqun's comments.
	o Indicate how static RPs can be used when LISP is run using Bidir-		o Indicate how static RPs can be used when LISP is run using Bidir-
	PIM in the core.		PIM in the core.
	o Editorial changes per Liming comments.		o Editorial changes per Liming comments.
	o Add Mttrace Considersations section.		o Add Mttrace Considersations section.
	A.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-00.txt		A.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-00.txt
	o Posted April 2008.		o Posted April 2008.
	o Renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt.		o Renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Dino Farinacci		Dino Farinacci
	cisco Systems		cisco Systems
	Tasman Drive		Tasman Drive
End of changes. 29 change blocks.
	87 lines changed or deleted		84 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/