Generic Multicast Router Election on LAN's
draft-wijnands-bier-mld-lan-election-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | IJsbrand Wijnands , Pierre Pfister , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-19 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-wijnands-bier-mld-lan-election-02
Internet Engineering Task Force IJ. Wijnands
Internet-Draft Arrcus
Intended status: Informational P. Pfister
Expires: 21 April 2024 Cisco Systems
J. Zhang
Juniper Networks
19 October 2023
Generic Multicast Router Election on LAN's
draft-wijnands-bier-mld-lan-election-02
Abstract
When a host is connected to multiple multicast capable routers, each
of these routers is a candidate to process the multicast flow for
that LAN, but only one router should be elected to process it. This
document proposes a generic multicast router election mechanism using
Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and Multicast Listener
Discovery (MLD) that can be used by any Multicast Overlay Signalling
Protocol (MOSP). Having such generic election mechanism removes a
dependency on Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM).
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 21 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Receiver side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Sender side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. DF Election Mechanism Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. The DF Election mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Highest Random Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. The DF Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. The Designated Announcer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3.1. DAL Hello Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3.2. A new Candidate DF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3.2.1. The Hello List is empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3.2.2. The New DF is not the DA . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3.2.3. The New DF is the DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3.3. A candidate DF goes down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3.3.1. The DF was not the DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3.3.2. The DF was the DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. DA Inconsistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. The Hello Message Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Hosts connected to Local Area Networks (LAN) use Internet Group
Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC4605] or Multicast Listener Discovery
(MLD) [RFC3810] to report their interest in a particular multicast
flow. A multicast flow is identified by a Group or a combination of
Group and Source address. Routers connected to a LAN listen to these
membership reports and signal that information to the Multicast
Overlay Signalling Protocol (MOSP). When a host is connected to
multiple routers, each of these routers is a candidate to forward the
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
multicast flow onto that LAN, but only one of them should forward the
packets for a given flow to avoid duplication of Multicast packets.
A similar requirement exists for hosts that are sending multicast
traffic and are connected to multiple routers on a LAN. If multiple
routers accept the multicast packets from the LAN, duplication may
occur and/or routing loops may be created.
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) [RFC4601] is a MOSP and has a
built-in mechanism to elect a Designated Router (DR) on the receiver
LAN and a Designated Forwarder (DF) on the senders LAN. The DR/DF
election avoids duplication and looping of multicast packets. Other
existing or candidate MOSPs, like Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
[RFC6514], Multi-point Label Distribution Protocols (mLDP) [RFC6826],
Locator ID Seperation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] and IGMP/MLD
[I-D.ietf-bier-mld] have no embedded LAN DR/DF election mechanism.
These MOSPs still rely on PIM to perform DR/DF election on LANs.
With the introduction of mLDP and Bit Indexed Explicit Replication
(BIER) [RFC8279], there is no dependency on PIM to transport
multicast packets through the network. Having a dependency on PIM
just for DR/DF election is undesirable if PIM is not selected as the
MOSP. This document proposes a generic DR/DF election which can be
used by any MOSP without having a dependency on PIM. It potentially
allows for different MOSPs to coexistence on single LANs.
2. Terminology and Definitions
Readers of this document are assumed to be familiar with the
terminology and concepts of the documents listed as Normative
References. For convenience, some of the more frequently used terms
appear below.
LAN
Local Area Network.
IGMP
Internet Group Management Protocol.
MLD
Multicast Listener Discovery.
mLDP
Multipoint LDP.
PIM
Protocol Independent Multicast.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
ASM
Any Source Multicast.
RP
The PIM Rendezvous Point.
LISP
Locator ID Seperation Protocol.
BIER
Bit Indexed Explicit Replication.
MOSP
Multicast Overlay Signalling Protocol. This is a protocol
that is (potentially) capable of announcing multicast flow
membership across the network between multicast routers. For
example PIM, mLDP, BGP, IGMP, MLD and LISP.
DF
A Designated Forwarder is responsible for accepting a
multicast packet from a LAN.
DR
A Designated Router is responsible for forwarding a multicast
packet onto a LAN.
DA
A Designated Announcer is a router that is responsible for
announcing a list of candidate Designated Forwarders.
DAL
A Designated Announcer List is generated by the DA and holds
the candidate Designated Forwarders.
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
4. Problem Statement
In the following sections we describe the requirements for DR/DF
election in more detail for hosts that are multicast senders and
receivers connected to multiple routers on a single LAN.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
4.1. Receiver side
Consider the network below in Topology1.
+---- MOSP ----+
LAN2
( R3 ) -|
LAN1 / |
S H1-|-( R1 )--( R2 ) |- H2 (joined G)
\ |
( R4 ) -|
Figure 1
Suppose that H2 on LAN2 is joining a multicast Group G. The MOSP
runs between R1, R3 and R4. Both R3 and R4 will receive the IGMP/MLD
report, but only one of these should become the DR. One might
consider that this problem can be detected and resolved by the MOSP.
The MOSP could be enhanced to allow R1 to detect that both R2 and R4
are connected to the same LAN, and select only to forward the
multicast flow to R3. That would solve the problem in the above
topology, but would fail in the topology below:
+---- MOSP ----+
LAN2
( R3 ) -|
LAN1 / |
S H1-|-( R1 )--( R2 ) |- H2 (joined G)
\ |
( R4 ) -|
|
- LAN3
|
H3 (joined G)
Figure 2
Consider that H3 on LAN3 joined the same multicast Group G. Since H3
is singly connected to R4, router R1 needs to forward the multicast
flow to R4 in order for H3 to receive the packets. R4 does not have
enough information to determine whether or not to forward on LAN2 for
H2 when it receives the multicast packets due to H3. In other words,
R4 needs DR state to avoid sending packets to H2 on LAN2.
4.2. Sender side
Consider the network below in Topology3.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
+---- MOSP ----+
LAN1
|- ( R1 )
| \ LAN2
S H1 -| ( R3 ) -- ( R4 ) -|- H2 (joined G)
| /
|- ( R2 )
Figure 3
H1 is directly connected via a LAN1 to R1 and R2. H2 joins a
multicast Group G, without specifying the Source. This is called Any
Source Multicast (ASM). The MOSP signals R4s interest in Group G to
R1 and R2. Note that there is no PIM deployed in this network and
there is no Rendezvous Point (RP) that is a target for this receiving
this Group membership. R4 has no information which routers in this
network have multicast packets to sent for this Group. Since this is
ASM, there may be multiple senders for this Group and H2 wants to
receive them all. For that reason, R4 will use the MOSP to announce
the membership to all edge nodes in the network (R1 and R2). This
poses a potential problem since R1 and R2 are both directly connected
to the Source S. If both R1 and R2 will forward the multicast
packets to R4, H2 will receive duplicate packets. This is a problem
that only occurs when a Source is dually connected to two or more
routers connected to the sam LAN. This problem can be resolved by
doing a Designated Forwarder (DF) election, similar to the DR
election. If R1 and R2 are aware they are directly connected, an
election will cause only one of them to forward the multicast packets
into the network for a given (S,G) flow.
5. Proposal
As explain in section 4, it is desirable to have a generic DR/DF
election mechanism that can be used by existing and candidate MOSPs.
Also, if a mix of MOSPs is used in the network, it is not obvious
which MOSP is responsible for electing the DR/DF. If a single DR/DF
is to be elected, and each MOSP does its own election, the MOSPs have
to negotiate among each other who will be responsible for DR/DF on a
LAN. Independent of the MOSP, a single router connected to the LAN
should be elected. It seems inefficient and unpractical to have each
MOSP implement its own DR/DF election mechanism.
There is a process in the router that all the MOSPs depend on for
Group membership discovery, that is the IGMP/MLD process. The DR/DF
election is typically based on the Group address or Group and Source
address of the multicast flow. This information is available in the
IGMP/MLD process. In this document we propose to enhance the IGMP/
MLD protocol to allow a DR/DF election among multicast routers
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
connected to a LAN. As soon as a router is elected as DR/DF, it can
select the MOSP that will be responsible to deliver the multicast
flow to this router, and onwards onto the LAN(s).
IGMP/MLD has support for electing a Membership Querier based on the
lowest IP address of the multicast routers sending out Membership
Queries. It would be possible to use the elected Membership Querier
as the DR/DF on a LAN. However, the authors believe that the
Membership Querier procedures are not robust and extensible enough to
be used DR/DF for election on LANs. For example, if a new multicast
router becomes active on a LAN, it will immediately assume the role
of a Membership Querier, which can lead to duplication and/or looping
of packets if also used as DR/DF. This duplication/looping will last
until it learns about other Membership queriers with a lower IP
address. Having two Membership queriers on the LAN has limited
impact on the IGMP/MLD protocol it self, it would only cause more
Membership Reports to be received.
The election mechanism for the DR and the DF is very similar. In
fact, when a DF is elected, it MUST always be used as the DR as well
to avoid multicast packet looping. The procedures in this document
always elect a DF on the LAN, and for that reason will always be the
DR. In the sections that follow, we don't refer to the DR anymore.
Everywhere where we reference DF, we implicitly mean it applies to
both the DR and DF.
6. DF Election Mechanism Requirements
When electing a DF on the LAN, it is important to have a single DF
for a given Multicast flow at all times. If during the election
process (or changes to it), there is no DF, it will cause traffic
loss to the end user. If there are two (or more) DFs at the same
time, it may cause traffic duplication or even loops. Since the
election is done among different routers, it is not so trivial to
guarantee that there will never be inconsistency in the DF election.
There is also a tradeoff between the complexity introduced and the
incremental benefit it brings. The procedures in this document are
designed to detect inconsistency and recover from it as fast as
possible. During inconsistency, we prefer traffic loss over possible
duplication or looping of multicast packets.
When there are multiple candidate DF routers on the LAN, it is
beneficial to load-balance the traffic over the different candidate
DFs. This helps to distribute the bandwidth usage among the routers,
reduce the impact of a router failure and shorten the failover time
when changing the DF for effected flows. For that reason the DF
procedures MUST support DF election per multicast group address.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
7. The DF Election mechanism
7.1. Highest Random Weight
The method proposed to select a DF is based on the Highest Random
Weight (HRM) as described in [RFC2291]. The paragraph below is
mostly taken (and modified) from [RFC2291].
The router computes the weight for EACH candidate DF by performing a
hash over the Group address that identifies the flow, as well as over
the address of the candidate DF. The router then chooses the
candidate DF with the highest resulting weight value. This has the
advantage of minimizing the number of flows affected by a candidate
DF addition or deletion (only 1/N of them), but is approximately N
times as expensive as a modulo-N hash.
In order to get a good distribution of the Group addresses over the
candidate DFs, it is important we choose a good Pseudorandom function
to calculate the Weight. The Weight is calculated using the Group
(G) IP address and the Candidate DF (CDF) IP address.
Weight(G, CDF) =
(1103515245((1103515245.G+12345)XOR CDF)+12345)(mod 2^31)
If multiple Candidate DFs end up with the same highest weight, the DF
with the lowest IP address MUST be selected.
If every candidate DF on the LAN uses the same HRW algorithm to
select the DF for a particular Group out of the same list of
candidate DFs, they all will reach the same conclusion and there will
be no inconsistency. It is very important every router on the LAN
has the same list of candidate DFs. The mechanism proposed in this
draft to generate a consistent list is based on the new Hello
message.
7.2. The DF Hello Message
In order to discover the candidate DFs we need a mechanism to learn
them. We introduce a new (IGMP/MLD) message type called the DF
Hello. Routers on a LAN that are candidate DFs periodically send DF
Hellos. The message format is specified later in a later revision
document. Based on the DF Hellos it is possible to generate a list
of candidate DFs. However, it is challenging to keep the candidate
DF list synchronized between the routers when DFs are added or
removed from the list as each router will do that based on its own
scheduling. Especially when candidate DFs timeout, it is very likely
this happens at different times and opens up the opportunity for
inconsistency. Also, when a new candidate DF is added to the network
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
and one of the routers did not get the initial DF Hello message, its
candidate DF list will be out of sync until the next DF Hello is
received, leading to a inconsistent candidate DF list for a
relatively long period. In order to help synchronize the candidate
DF List we elect a Designated Announcer (DA).
7.3. The Designated Announcer
The router that will act as the Designated Announcer is determined by
the Priority value as included in the Hello message, using the IP
address as tiebreaker. The router with the highest priority is
preferred, if there are multiple routers with the same priority, the
router with the highest IP address is preferred. The DA determines
which routers from the Hello List (HL) are included in the Designated
Announcer List (DAL). By default all the routers in the HL are
considered to be included in the DAL. It is however possible to
filter certain candidates and not include these in the list based on
some sort of preference.
7.3.1. DAL Hello Option
The DAL is sent out by the DA as an Option included in its Hello
message. In order to reliably transmit the Hello Message with the
DAL option, a DAL sequence number is included in the packet along
with an acknowledgement flag for each router in the DAL. Every
router in the DAL MUST respond by triggering a Hello message
including this sequence number. If the DA has not received a
response within a given timeout from certain routers in the DAL it
will re-transmit the Hello message with the Acknowledgement flag not
set for the routers that have not responded. The routers on the LAN
that see their IP address in the DAL without the acknowledgement flag
set will re-transmit their Hello. This process continues until the
DA has received a response from all the routers in the DAL. Using
this mechanism we minimize the time an inconsistency can occur when a
router has missed a Hello message that includes that DAL.
7.3.2. A new Candidate DF
When a new candidate DF becomes active on the LAN, it first has to
learn if there are other candidate DFs on the LAN. Learning about
other candidate DFs is accelerated by setting the Learn Flag in the
Hello message. Routers on the LAN that receive a Hello with the
Learn Flag set will trigger a Hello message in response. After the
learning delay the new DF assumes all candidate DFs on the LAN have
responded and the Hello List is complete. There are three different
scenarios the new DF has to consider.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
7.3.2.1. The Hello List is empty
When the HL is empty, the new DF will become the DA with only its own
address in the DAL. The DF will start to act as DF for all the
groups.
7.3.2.2. The New DF is not the DA
When there are other candidate DFs on the LAN, the Hello List is
populated. If the new DF is not the DA, it will have to wait for the
DA to include its address in the DAL. As soon as it sees its own
address in the ADA with the acknowledgement flag not set, it will
trigger a Hello message with the DAL sequence number and start to act
as DF. Note, it is likely that new DFs IP address is already
included in the first Hello message it receives from the DA.
7.3.2.3. The New DF is the DA
After the Learning delay the new router may find it self having the
highest Priority and will be the new ADA. Note, we prefer the DA to
be deterministic so the new DF will take over the role of the DA.
The DF which is currently the DA will have seen the Hello message
from the new DF and will realize this is the new DA. The current DA
MUST respond by sending a Hello message without the DAL in it. All
the routers on the LAN will now know that the current DA is going
away. The candidate DFs MAY continue to use the old DAL until the
new DAL list is received from the new DA. The new DF will create the
DAL list based on its Hello List and send out a Hello message,
following the procedures as described above. If during a transition
of the DA a router detects inconsistency between the received DAL and
the perceived DA, the router stops using the current DAL and waits
until the inconsistency is resolved. This inconsistency may have
occurred due to missing a DF Hello message (also see section DA
inconsistency).
7.3.3. A candidate DF goes down
When a DF goes down there are 2 different scenarios to consider.
7.3.3.1. The DF was not the DA
When a DF goes down, due to a failure or an operator removing it from
the LAN, the routers on the LAN will eventually detect this because
the Holdtime for that DF will expire. This does not have an
immediate effect on the DF procedures because the DF is chosen from
the DAL, originated by the DA. A candidate DF MUST NOT take any
action based on a candidate DF going down, but MUST wait for the DA
to sent out a new DAL list. This will ensure that all candidate DFs
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
on the LAN will start to use the new DAL at the same time and avoid
any discrepancies due to routers expiring the timer associated with
the DF that went down.
7.3.3.2. The DF was the DA
If the DF that goes down is the DA, a new DA has to be elected.
Note, every candidate DF on the LAN is a potential candidate to
become the new DA. The new DA is chosen based on the Hello List
using the Designated Announcer election procedures. It is possible a
candidate DF receives the DAL from the new DA before it detected the
current DA is down. This may be due to a race condition where timers
on the candidate DF expire at different times. We use the procedures
as described in section (DA inconsistency).
7.4. DA Inconsistency
A candidate DF that receives a DAL from a router that it does not
consider to be the active DA MUST immediately stop acting as a DF.
The candidate DF MUST wait for the DA inconsistency to be resolved
before it is allowed to resume its role as candidate DF. This will
cause traffic to be blocked for the multicast groups this DF is
responsible for, but it will not cause traffic duplication and/or
loops due to other DFs using a different DAL list. The inconsistency
can be resolved due to the following events.
* The active DA expires.
* A Hello is received from the active DA without a DAL.
When the candidate DF detects that there is only one candidate DF
that has announced the DAL and it is considered to be the DA, the
inconsistency is resolved and the DF can resume its role as DF for
the Groups it is responsible for.
8. The Hello Message Packet Format
The format of the Hello Message is included on the next revision of
this document.
9. Security Considerations
TBD.
10. IANA Considerations
TBD.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
11. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Neale Ranns and Greg Shepherd for their comments on
this draft.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-mld]
Pfister, P., Wijnands, I., Venaas, S., Wang, C., Zhang,
Z., and M. Stenberg, "BIER Ingress Multicast Flow Overlay
using Multicast Listener Discovery Protocols", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-mld-08, 2 July
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
bier-mld-08>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2291] Slein, J., Vitali, F., Whitehead, E., and D. Durand,
"Requirements for a Distributed Authoring and Versioning
Protocol for the World Wide Web", RFC 2291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2291, February 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2291>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2023
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC6826] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M.
Napierala, "Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6826, DOI 10.17487/RFC6826, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6826>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
12.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnands
Arrcus
Belgium
Email: ice@braindump.be
Pierre Pfister
Cisco Systems
France
Email: pierre.pfister@darou.fr
Jeffrey Zhang
Juniper Networks
United States of America
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Wijnands, et al. Expires 21 April 2024 [Page 13]