The MASC/BGMP Architecture for Inter-domain Multicast Routing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

the masc bgmp architecture for inter domain multicast
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The MASC/BGMP Architecture for Inter-domain Multicast Routing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The MASC/BGMP Architecture for Inter-domain Multicast Routing Satish Kumar (USC), Pavlin Radoslavov (USC), Dave Thaler (Merit), Cengiz Alaettinoglu (ISI), Deborah Estrin (ISI), Mark Handley (ISI) 1 Current multicast situation (one big


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

The MASC/BGMP Architecture for Inter-domain Multicast Routing

Satish Kumar (USC), Pavlin Radoslavov (USC), Dave Thaler (Merit), Cengiz Alaettinoglu (ISI), Deborah Estrin (ISI), Mark Handley (ISI)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Current multicast situation (one big domain) does not scale

  • Address allocation: can collide with anyone

in the world

  • Route distribution: exponential increase in

Mbone routes

  • Tree construction: source-tree protocols

floods data, membership; shared-tree protocols flood core lists

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Solution: divide net into domains

  • Similar to solution for unicast (e.g. BGP)
  • Domain autonomy adds stability and

enables policy control

  • Inside domains, can use existing

mechanisms for address allocation, routing, and tree construction

  • Between domains, need policy control
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Also need to minimize “third- party dependencies” such as:

  • Relying on PIM Rendezvous Point in

someone else’s domain for general “infrastructure” groups (SDR, NTP, mtrace, etc)

  • Data loss over another provider’s link
  • Address allocation via single global

authority

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Goals

  • Construct group-shared trees rooted in

group initiator’s domain

  • Use bidirectional trees to minimize third-

party dependencies

S2 Root R S1 R

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Goals (cont.)

  • Use simple scalable mapping of group to

tree root

  • Add topological significance to group

addresses to allow state aggregatability

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Three parts to solution

  • MASC associates aggregatable group-

prefixes with domains

  • BGP distributes routes to those group

prefixes (“group routes”) subject to policy

  • BGMP constructs bi-directional shared trees
  • f domains
slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

MASC associates aggregatable group-prefixes with domains

Allocations must be dynamic to adapt to usage patterns

228.10.0/24 228.10/16 226.1/16 226.1.128/24 226.1.0/24

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

MASC uses a claim-collide mechanism (summary)

  • Claimant learns parent prefix and lifetime
  • Claimant chooses a sub-prefix and lifetime
  • Claimant sends claim to parent (if any) and

siblings

  • Claimant listens for collisions
  • After timeout, claimant can use prefix
  • Timeout based on maximum partition time
slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

MASC uses a claim-collide mechanism (example)

226.1/16 226.1.128/24 226.1/16 226.1.128/24 Collision!

Collision causes loser to choose another prefix

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Why claim-collide?

  • Query-response has third-party dependency

at top level

  • Query-response with multiple servers

introduces synchronization complexity

  • Claim-collide is same at all levels
  • Claim-collide appears simpler, and more

robust

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Multiprotocol BGP distributes group routes subject to policy

Default 226.1/16 226.1.0/24 Default

Policy is realized through selective propagation of group routes

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

BGMP constructs bi-directional shared trees

Root domain R

  • A group’s tree is rooted at the creator’s

domain (not a single router)

  • BGMP uses intra-domain routing inside

S2 R S1 R

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Data from sender-only domains just follows group routes

Default 226.1.0/24 Root domain for 226.1.0/24 Sender to 226.1.0.3 Default 226.1/16 S1 RD

Forwarding occurs as in unicast

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Joins from receiver domains also follow group routes

226.1.0/24 Root domain for 226.1.0/24 Default S1 RD R Receiver joins 226.1.0.3

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

SPT-based domains require encapsulation from group tree

RD S R DVMRP B A

Encapsulation is avoided with source-specific branch

(S,G) Join

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Source trees are incompatible with bidirectional (*,G) trees

RD S R1 R2 A B

Duplicates or black holes can form!

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

BGMP’s (S,G) branch stops at first on-tree router

  • Result is a “Hybrid” bidir shared tree with

some unidir (S,G) branches

  • Hybrid tree path 20% longer than SPT
  • Bidir shared tree path 30% longer than SPT
  • Unidir shared tree path 100% longer than

SPT

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

BGMP/MASC Architecture Summary

  • Third-party dependencies are minimized
  • Use of BGP allows policy control of trees
  • Topological significance of group addresses

allows state aggregation

  • Source-specific branches avoid

encapsulation without causing loops