From my last post on PIM BiDir I got some great comments from my friend Peter Palúch. I still had some concepts that weren’t totally clear to me and I don’t like to leave unfinished business. There is also a lack of resources properly explaining the behavior of PIM BiDir. For that reason I would like to clarify some concepts and write some more about the potential gains of PIM BiDir is. First we must be clear on the terminology used in PIM BiDir.
Rendezvous Point Address (RPA) – The RPA is an address that is used as the root of the distribution tree for a range of multicast groups. This address must be routable in the PIM domain but does not have to reside on a physical interface or device.
Rendezvous Point Link (RPL) – It is the physical link to which the RPA belongs. The RPL is the only link where DF election does not take place. The RFC also says “In BIDIR-PIM, all multicast traffic to groups mapping to a specific RPA is forwarded on the RPL of that RPA.” In some scenarios where the RPA is virtual, there may not be an RPL though.
Upstream – Traffic towards the root (RPA) of the tree. This is the direction used by packets traveling from source(s) to the RPL.
Downstream – Traffic going away from the root. The direction from which packets travel from the RPL to the receivers.
Designated Forwarder (DF) – A single DF exists for every RPA on a link, point to point or multipoint. The only exception as noted above is the RPL. The DF is the router with the best metric to the RPA. The DF is responsible for forwarding downstream traffic onto its link and forwarding upstream traffic from its link towards the RPL. The DF on a link is also responsible for processing Join messages from downstream routers on the link and ensuring packets are forwarded to local receivers as discovered by IGMP or MLD.
RPF Interface – The RPF interface is determined by looking up the RPA in the Multicast Routing Information Table (MRIB). The RPF information then determines which interface of the router that would be used to send packets towards the RPL of the group.
RPF Neighbor – The next node on the shortest path towards the RPA.
Sources in PIM BiDir
One of the confusing parts in PIM BiDir is how traffic travels from the source(s) to the RPA. There is no (S,G) and no PIM Register messages in PIM BiDir, so how is this handled?
When a source starts sending traffic it will send it towards the RPA regardless if there are any receivers or not. The DF on the segment is responsible for sending the traffic upstream towards the RPA. The packet then travels through the PIM domain until it reaches the root of the tree (RPA). In some articles on PIM BiDir, it is mentioned that there is no RPF check. This is not entirely true since RPF is used to find the right interface towards the RPA but it does not use RPF to ensure loop free forwarding, the DF mechanism is instead used for this.
The picture shows a source sending traffic to a multicast group, there are no interested receivers yet. Traffic from the source travels towards the RPA which is not a physical device but only exists virtually on a shared segment with the routers R1, R2 and R3. These routers are connected to the RPL and on the RPL, there is no DF election. This means that they are free to forward the packets, however, there are no receivers yet and hence no interfaces in the Outgoing Interface List (OIL). This means that traffic will simply get dropped in the bitbucket. This is a waste of bandwidth until at least one receiver joins the shared tree.
Considerations for PIM BiDir
Since there is no way to control what the multicast sources are sending, what we are giving up for getting minimal state in the PIM domain is bandwidth. It is not very likely though that a many-to-many multicast application will not have any receivers so this may be an acceptable sacrifice.
Due to having minimum state, PIM BiDir will use less memory compared to PIM ASM or PIM SSM, it will also use less CPU since there is less PIM messages to be generated and received and processed. Is this a consideration on modern platforms? It might be, it might not be. What is known though is that it is a less complex protocol than PIM ASM because it does not have a PIM Register process. Due to this, the RP, which does not even have to be a real router, can’t get overwhelmed by the unicast PIM Register messages. This also provides for an easier mechanism to provide RP redundancy compared to PIM ASM and SSM which requires anycast and MSDP to provide the same.
PIM BiDir Not Working in IOSv and CSR1000v
While writing this post I needed to run some tests, so I booted up VIRL and tested on IOSv but could not get PIM BiDir to work properly. I then tested with CSR1000v, both within VIRL and directly on an ESXi server with the same results. These images were quite new and it seems something is not working properly in them. When the routers were running in BiDir mode, they would not process the multicast and forward it on. Just a fair warning that if you try it that you may run into similar results, please share if you discover something interesting.
Putting it All Together
To get an understanding for the whole process, let us then describe all of the steps from when the source starts sending until the receiver starts receiving the traffic from the source.
The source starts sending traffic on the local segment to R4. R4 is the DF on the link since it’s the only router present.
R4 does a RPF check for 192.0.2.1 which is the RPA, through this process it finds the upstream interface and starts forwarding traffic towards the RPA where R1 is the RPF neighbor and the next router on the path towards the RPA.
R1 forwards traffic towards the RPA on its upstream interface but there are no interested receivers yet, so the traffic will get dropped in the bitbucket. Please note that both R2 and R3 does receive this traffic but if there is no interface in the OIL, the traffic simply gets dropped.
The PC then starts to generate an IGMP Report and sends it towards R5.
R5 is the DF on the segment which also means that it is the Designated Router (DR). It will generate a PIM Join (*,G) and send it towards the RPA on its upstream interface where R3 is the RPF neighbor. Only the DF and hence DR on a link may act on the IGMP Report.
R3 receives the PIM Join from R5 and since traffic is already being sent out by R1 on the RPL, R3 is allowed to start forwarding the traffic. Remember that there is no DF elected on the RPL. We now have end to end multicast flowing.
The main goal of this post was to show how the RP can be a virtual device on a shared segment. This means that redundancy can be designed into the RP role without any complex mechanisms used in PIM ASM. I also wanted to clarify some concepts with the forwarding and the terminology since there seem to be quite a few posts out there that are slightly wrong or not using the correct terminology.
4 thoughts on “More PIM-BiDir Considerations”
Though I see less people are l interested on multicast topics due to the way that it behaves and its complication but this was a nice and solid right up . Keep it up .
I suppose that with bandwidth being more plentyful these days, people try to avoid the complexities of multicast.
I still think multicast is a good technology though, if deployed properly.
Oh , I see a few typo in my last reply . That is true and multicast would be a bigger player if application developers get more information about it that can help them to develop a multicast aware applications. I really enjoy playing with multicast specially the SSM one.
Pingback:CCDE Success: References Used – localpref.net