BGP MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure Networks: Problems and Solution Approaches
draft-duan-bess-mvpn-ipv6-infras-05

Network Working Group                                            F. Duan
Internet-Draft                                                    J. Xie
Updates: 6514 (if approved)                                      S. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: 24 May 2024                                    21 November 2023

    BGP MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure Networks: Problems and Solution
                               Approaches
                  draft-duan-bess-mvpn-ipv6-infras-05

Abstract

   MVPN deployment faces some problems while used in provider's IPv6
   infrastructure networks.  This document describes these problems, and
   corresponding solutions.

Requirements Language

   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, as shown here.

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 24 May 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 2023

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Problems and Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.1.  Problems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.2.  Modification of C-Multicast Route NLRI  . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Route Reflection Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   BGP MVPN procedure is defined in [RFC6514].  As a mature MVPN
   technology, it has been accepted by most operators and vendors.  In
   [RFC6515], BGP MVPN is updated for IPv6 infrastructure networks.
   However, the deployment of BGP MVPN in IPv6 network still faces some
   problems.  This document describes these problems and corresponding
   solutions.

2.  Terminology

   Readers of this document are assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology and concepts of the documents listed as Normative
   References.

3.  Problems and Solutions

3.1.  Problems

   In [RFC6514] and [RFC6515], the following issues are critical for
   IPv6 infrastructure scenarios while a non-segmented inter-AS P-tunnel
   is being established between root PE and its leaf PEs, of which the
   reason is that the Source AS field (4 octets) of C-multicast route
   cannot hold a IPv6 address (16 octets).

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 2023

   1.  In order to distinguish the C-multicast routes for a specific
       multicast c-flow (C-S, C-G) sent to different root PEs, section
       11.1.3 of [RFC6514] proposed that "To support non-segmented
       inter-AS tunnels, the Source AS field in the C-multicast route is
       set to value of the Originating Router's IP Address field of the
       found Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route".  However, in NLRI of
       C-multicast route, Source AS field is 4 octets in length, while
       the Originating Router's IP Address field of Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
       route is 16 octets length in provider's IPv6 networks.  The
       4-octet Source AS field cannot hold the Originating Router's IP
       Address in IPv6 network.

   2.  In order to control the propagation of C-multicast routes between
       different ASes, section 11.2 of [RFC6514] proposed that "Instead
       of matching the RD and Source AS carried in the C-multicast route
       against the RD and Source AS of an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route, the
       ASBR should match it against the RD and the Originating Router's
       IP Address of the Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes".  However, Source
       AS field in NLRI of C-multicast route cannot be translated to the
       Originating Router's IP Address of the Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes
       in provider's IPv6 networks, because of the mismatch of their
       field length.

   In the process of evolution to IPv6, IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure
   addresses will coexist in the provider's network.  The following
   figure is an example of BGP MVPN evolution to IPv6.

    +-----------+           +---+     +---+           +-----------+
    | +-------+ |           |   |     |   |           | +-------+ |
    | | O-MVRF| |=BGP Peer4=|   |     |   |=BGP Peer4=| | O-MVRF| |
    | +-------+ |           |   |     |   |           | +-------+ |
    |           |           |   |     |   |           |           |
    |    PE1    |           |RR1| ... |RRn|           |    PE2    |
    |           |           |   |     |   |           |           |
    | +-------+ |           |   |     |   |           | +-------+ |
    | | N-MVRF| |=BGP Peer6=|   |     |   |=BGP Peer6=| | N-MVRF| |
    | +-------+ |           |   |     |   |           | +-------+ |
    +-----------+           +---+     +---+           +-----------+
    O-MVRF = Old Multicast VRF using IPv4 infrastructure addresses
    N-MVRF = New Multicast VRF using IPv6 infrastructure addresses

            Figure 1: BGP MVPN Evolution to IPv6 Infrastructure

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 2023

   During the evolution process, IPv4 and IPv6 parallel BGP sessions are
   established between Provider Edge routers and route reflectors(RR).
   If the BGP MVPN routes are sent to all IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers
   without any control, the number of the PATHs of these routes will be
   doubled with each reflection while BGP ADD-PATH [RFC7911] procedure
   is enabled on route reflectors.

3.2.  Modification of C-Multicast Route NLRI

   The solution to distinguish the C-multicast routes sent to different
   root PEs is related to the way to distinguish UMH routes for a
   specific multicast source (C-S) sent from different root PEs, which
   the later is not a problem of IPv6 infrastructure specific.  In
   [RFC6514], it recommended that the RDs of root PEs of a same MVPN
   were configured distinctly to perform selective forwarding selection,
   which was broken by GTM procedures defined in [RFC7716] because the
   UMH routes sent from different root PEs through BGP SAFI 1 or SAFI 2
   lack RD informations.  There are also some MVPN deployment cases that
   the RDs of root PEs may be configuered with a same value for
   provisioning reasons.  According to above description, whether the
   RDs of PEs of a MVPN are same or not are two different deployment
   cases.  This document addresses the C-multicast routes distinguishing
   issue for both cases.  How to distinguish UMH routes in the cases of
   root PEs with same RD is out of the scope of this document, because
   it is not IPv6 infrastructure specific.

   To support non-segmented inter-AS tunnels in IPv6 infrastructure
   network, the C-multicast route NLRI is redefined as follow:

         +-----------------------------------+
         |      RD   (8 octets)              |
         +-----------------------------------+
         |   Root Distinguisher (4 octets)   |
         +-----------------------------------+
         | Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
         +-----------------------------------+
         |   Multicast Source (variable)     |
         +-----------------------------------+
         |  Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
         +-----------------------------------+
         |  Multicast Group   (variable)     |
         +-----------------------------------+

   In the above figure, the Root Distinguisher field replaces the Source
   As field defined in [RFC6514].  When constructing a C-multicast
   route, leaf PE follows the following specification:

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 2023

   1.  For the cases of IPv4 infrastructure or Intra-AS P-tunnel
       establishment in IPv6 infrastructure, the Root Distinguisher
       field MUST be treated as Source AS field and section 11.1.3 of
       [RFC6514] MUST be fully followed.

   2.  For non-segmented Inter-AS P-tunnel establishment in IPv6
       infrastructure scenarios, if the RDs of ingress PEs are distinct
       (which can be detected from UMH routes), the Root Distinguisher
       field MUST be filled with the number of ingress AS.

   3.  For non-segmented Inter-AS P-tunnel establishment in IPv6
       infrastructure scenarios, if the RDs of ingress PEs are same, a
       4-octet distinct value MUST be assigned by leaf PE for each root
       PE.  For example, each leaf PE uses a same well-known /
       configured hash algorithm to transform the IPv6 root IP to
       4-octet distinct value for each ingress PE, or a provisioning
       method is used to globally assign different 4-octet IDs for each
       ingress PE.  The Root Distinguisher field in C-multicast NLRI is
       filled with this value and a distinct C-multicast route will be
       sent to individual upstream root PE.

   The solution to control the propagation of C-multicast route between
   different ASes is to use the IPv6 address included in IPv6 VRF Route
   Import Extended Community insteading of Source AS field of
   C-multicast NLRI while locating Intra-AS AD route of the
   corresponding root PE the C-multicast sent to on ASBRs.  This
   document recommends that the Local Administrator field of IPv6 VRF
   Route Import Extended Community is set to a non-zero value by root
   PEs even in GTM scenarios, of which the value is local assigned
   distinctly by root PE for both each MVPN and GTM instance.
   Accordingly, the IPv6 root address of a C-multicast route can be
   extracted from the only IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community
   carring a non-zero Local Administrator field.

   When receiving a C-multicast route from E-BGP neighbors, the ASBR
   checks whether an IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community with a
   non-zero Local Administrator field is included in this route and
   takes following actions:

   1.  If the IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community does not exist in
       the C-multicast route, the ASBR will treat the Root Distinguisher
       field as Source AS field and follows the description in section
       11.2 of [RFC6514].

   2.  If the IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community does exist in the
       C-multicast route, the ASBR will match the IPv6 address carried
       in this extended community and the RD in C-multicast route NLRI
       against the Originating Router's IP Address and the RD of the

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 2023

       Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.  If the corresponding Intra-AS I-PMSI
       A-D route exists, the ASBR will propagate the C-multicast route
       in its local AS.

3.3.  Route Reflection Control

   To reduce BGP MVPN routes in Parallel IPv4 and IPv6 BGP sessions
   scenario, the following actions should be taken by sender PEs:

   1.  For Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Route, S-PMSI A-D Route and Leaf A-D
       Route, if the Originating Router's IP Address field in the route
       is filled with an IPv6 address, it will be sent to the IPv6 BGP
       neighbors; otherwise, it will be sent to the IPv4 BGP neighbors.

   2.  For Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route and Source Active A-D Route, it is
       sent to both IPv6 BGP neighbors and IPv4 BGP neighbors.

   3.  For C-multicast route, if the IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended
       Community exists in the route, it will be sent to the IPv6 BGP
       neighbors; otherwise, it will be sent to the IPv4 BGP neighbors.

   In the route reflectors, the part of routes which are received from
   IPv6 BGP neighbors will be reflected to other IPv6 BGP neighbors and
   the other part of routes which are received from IPv4 BGP neighbors
   will be reflected to other IPv4 BGP neighbors.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
   already specified in [RFC6514] and [RFC6515].

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document contains no actions for IANA.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Your name here

7.  Normative References

   [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>.

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure         November 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>.

   [RFC6515]  Aggarwal, R. and E. Rosen, "IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure
              Addresses in BGP Updates for Multicast VPN", RFC 6515,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6515, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6515>.

   [RFC7716]  Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
              and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
              VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.

   [RFC7911]  Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder,
              "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", RFC 7911,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7911, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fanghong Duan
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: duanfanghong@huawei.com

   Jingrong Xie
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com

   Siyu Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: chensiyu27@huawei.com

Duan, et al.               Expires 24 May 2024                  [Page 7]