Operational Considerations for Multicast over RIFT-based Data Center Fabrics

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 October 2026.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Modern data center fabrics rely on Clos-based topologies to achieve scalability, high bandwidth, and fault tolerance. RIFT [RFC9692] provides efficient unicast routing with topology awareness and Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP).¶

Multicast traffic remains relevant for telemetry distribution, financial data delivery, streaming, and EVPN-VXLAN BUM traffic handling. However, RIFT does not define native multicast capabilities.¶

Operators must rely on external mechanisms such as PIM [RFC4601], EVPN multicast [RFC7432], BIER [RFC8279], or head-end replication. This document provides guidance for selecting and operating these mechanisms in RIFT-based fabrics.¶

2. Terminology

The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals.¶

RIFT Fabric:

A Clos or fat-tree data center network using RIFT as the underlay.¶

Leaf Node:

A node connecting endpoints to the fabric.¶

Spine Node:

A node interconnecting leaf nodes within the fabric.¶

BUM Traffic:

Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast traffic in EVPN-VXLAN.¶

VTEP:

VXLAN Tunnel Endpoint.¶

Head-End Replication (HER):

Ingress node replicates packets to each remote receiver via unicast.¶

RP (Rendezvous Point):

PIM-SM node coordinating multicast group membership and tree construction.¶

RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding):

Mechanism validating multicast packet ingress interface against the unicast routing table.¶

KV-TIE:

Key-Value Topology Information Element. RIFT mechanism for distributing key-value data within the fabric.¶

ZTP:

Zero Touch Provisioning. RIFT automatic node-level discovery and configuration.¶

3. Applicability Statement

This document applies to data center fabrics using RIFT [RFC9692] as the underlay routing protocol, specifically Clos and fat-tree topologies as described in [RFC9696]. It is not intended for general-purpose IP networks or WAN environments.¶

Numerical values and thresholds presented in this document are illustrative and may vary by platform. Operators SHOULD validate all thresholds against their platform documentation prior to production deployment.¶

4. Problem Statement

RIFT provides efficient unicast routing but does not define mechanisms for multicast group membership or tree construction. Existing solutions introduce the following trade-offs:¶

• PIM introduces control-plane complexity requiring RP placement design and specialized expertise.¶
• EVPN multicast increases signaling overhead and requires overlay-underlay coordination.¶
• Head-end replication does not scale efficiently; cost grows linearly with VTEP count.¶
• None of these approaches natively leverage RIFT topology awareness or KV-TIE distribution.¶

There is no standardized operational guidance for multicast in RIFT-based fabrics. This document addresses this gap.¶

5. Multicast Deployment Models

Operators should evaluate deployment models based on scale, platform support, and operational requirements. Table 1 summarizes the trade-offs.¶

6. Operational Best Practices

The values presented are illustrative and may vary by platform.¶

7. Monitoring and Observability

Operators SHOULD monitor multicast traffic using platform telemetry. Table 2 provides recommended alert thresholds. Values are illustrative.¶

8. Convergence Considerations

Multicast convergence depends on underlay convergence time, protocol behavior, and control-plane load. Some packet loss during convergence is expected. Operators SHOULD use fast failure detection on PIM-enabled links.¶

9. BUM Traffic Handling

10. Use Cases and Deployment Examples

11. Troubleshooting

Diagnostic procedures vary by platform. Operators SHOULD consult platform documentation for specific commands and tools.¶

12. Security Considerations

Multicast deployments MAY introduce flooding, amplification, and unauthorized group access risks. Operators SHOULD enable RPF checking; use SSM with IGMPv3 where possible; filter 224.0.0.0/24 at fabric boundaries (this range MUST NOT be routed across the fabric); configure per-source rate limits; and apply control-plane policing on RP nodes.¶

13. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.¶

Appendix A: Two-Level RIFT Fabric (Small/Medium DC)

          Level 1 (Spine)
  +------------+    +------------+
  |  Spine-1   |    |  Spine-2   |
  +------------+    +------------+
   /    |    \      /    |    \
  /     |     \    /     |     \
Level 0 (Leaf)
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| Leaf-1 | | Leaf-2 | | Leaf-3 | | Leaf-4 |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   | |        | |        | |        | |
  VMs VMs   VMs VMs    VMs VMs    VMs VMs

Appendix B: PIM Multicast Tree Example

   Source (Leaf-1)
        |
        v
  +----------+
  | Spine-1  |  <-- Rendezvous Point (RP)
  +----------+
   /    |    \
  v     v     v
+------+ +------+ +------+
|Leaf-2| |Leaf-3| |Leaf-4|
+------+ +------+ +------+

Appendix C: EVPN BUM Head-End Replication

  Ingress VTEP
  +--------+
  | Leaf-1 |
  +--------+
   /   |   \  (unicast VXLAN copies)
  v    v    v
+------+ +------+ +------+
|Leaf-2| |Leaf-3| |Leaf-4|
|(VTEP)| |(VTEP)| |(VTEP)|
+------+ +------+ +------+

Appendix D: Large DC Multi-Level Topology

        Level 2 (Super-Spine)
+-----------+  +-----------+  +-----------+
| S-Spine-1 |  | S-Spine-2 |  | S-Spine-3 |
+-----------+  +-----------+  +-----------+
  Level 1 (Spine) -- Multiple RP regions
+------+ +------+  +------+ +------+
|Sp-1  | |Sp-2  |  |Sp-3  | |Sp-4  |  ...
|(RP-A)| |(RP-B)|  |(RP-C)| |(RP-D)|
+------+ +------+  +------+ +------+
  Level 0 (Leaf)
+--++--+ +--++--+  +--++--+ +--++--+
|L1||L2| |L3||L4|  |L5||L6| |L7||L8| ...
+--++--+ +--++--+  +--++--+ +--++--+

Author's Address