Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-00
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (bess WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2020-01-26
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
BESS Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track R. Raszuk
Expires: July 27, 2020 Bloomberg LP
D. Pacella
Verizon
A. Gulko
Thomson Reuters
January 24, 2020
Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-00
Abstract
This document specifies a way that one or more centralized
controllers can use BGP to set up a multicast distribution tree in a
network. In the case of labeled tree, the labels are assigned by the
controllers either from the controllers' local label spaces, or from
a common Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB), or from each routers
Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) that the controllers learn. In
case of labeled unidirectional tree and label allocation from the
common SRGB or from the controllers' local spaces, a single common
label can be used for all routers on the tree to send and receive
traffic with. Since the controllers calculate the trees, they can
use sophisticated algorithms and constraints to achieve traffic
engineering.
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/.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 27, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast-controller January 2020
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 July 27, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Label Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4.1. Using a Common per-tree Label for All Routers . . . . 6
1.4.2. Upstream-assignment from Controller's Local Label
Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5. Determining Root/Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5.1. PIM-SSM/Bidir or mLDP P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5.2. PIM ASM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Additional Tunnel Types for TEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1. Any-Encapsulation Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.2. Load-balancing Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. RPF Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Context Label Wide Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Show full document text