BGP Based Multicast
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (bess WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Lenny Giuliano , Keyur Patel , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Arkadiy Gulko | ||
| Last updated | 2022-01-07 | ||
| Replaces | draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-04
BESS Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft L. Giuliano
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: July 11, 2022 K. Patel
Arrcus
I. Wijnands
M. Mishra
Cisco Systems
A. Gulko
Refinitiv
January 7, 2022
BGP Based Multicast
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-04
Abstract
This document specifies a BGP address family and related procedures
that allow BGP to be used for setting up multicast distribution
trees. This document also specifies procedures that enable BGP to be
used for multicast source discovery, and for showing interest in
receiving particular multicast flows. Taken together, these
procedures allow BGP to be used as a replacement for other multicast
routing protocols, such as PIM or mLDP. The BGP procedures specified
here are based on the BGP multicast procedures that were originally
designed for use by providers of Multicast Virtual Private Network
service.
This document also describes how various signaling mechanisms can be
used to set up end-to-end inter-region multiast trees.
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
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
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 July 11, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Native/unlabeled Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Labeled Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1. (x,g) Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1.1. Source Discovery for ASM . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1.2. ASM Shared-tree-only Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1.3. Integration with BGP-MVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.2. BGP Inband Signaling for mLDP Tunnel . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.3. BGP Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.4. LAN and Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.5. Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.6. Inter-region Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.6.1. Inband Signaling across a Region . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.6.2. Overlay Signaling Over a Region . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.6.3. Controller Based Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.7. BGP Classful Transport Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.8. Flexible Algorithm and Multi-topology . . . . . . . . 13
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1. BGP NLRIs and Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
2.1.1. S-PMSI A-D Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2. Leaf A-D Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.3. Source Active A-D Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.4. S-PMSI A-D Route for C-multicast mLDP . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.5. Session Address Extended Community . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.6. Multicast RPF Address Extended Community . . . . . . 18
2.1.7. Topology/IPA Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1. Source Discovery for ASM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.2. Originating Tree Join Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2.1. (x,g) Multicast Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2.2. BGP Inband Signaling for mLDP Tunnel . . . . . . 20
2.2.3. Receiving Tree Join Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.4. Withdrawl of Tree Join Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.5. LAN procedures for (x,g) Unidirectional Tree . . . . 21
2.2.5.1. Originating S-PMSI A-D Routes . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.5.2. Receiving S-PMSI A-D Routes . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.6. Distributing Label for Upstream Traffic for
Bidirectional Tree/Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
This section provides some motivation for BGP signaling for native
and labeled multicast. One target deployment would be a Data Center
that requires multicast but uses BGP as its only routing protocol
[RFC7938]. In such a deployment, it would be desirable to support
multicast by extending the deployed routing protocol, without
requiring the deployment of tree building protocols such as PIM,
mLDP, RSVP-TE P2MP, and without requiring an IGP.
Additionally, compared to PIM, BGP based signaling has several
advantage as described in the following section, and may be desired
in non-DC deployment scenarios as well.
1.1.1. Native/unlabeled Multicast
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) has been the prevailing
multicast protocol for many years. Despite its success, it has two
drawbacks:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
o The ASM model, which is prevalent, introduces complexity in the
following areas: source discovery procedures, need for Rendezvous
Points (RPs) and group-to-RP mappings, need to switch between RP-
rooted trees and source-rooted trees, etc.
o Periodical protocol state refreshes due to soft state nature.
PIM-SSM removes much of the complexity of PIM-ASM by moving source
discovery to the application layer. However, for various reasons,
many legacy applications and devices still rely upon network-based
source discovery. PIM-Port (PIM over Reliable Transport) solves the
soft state issue, though its deployment has also been limited for two
reasons:
o It does not remove the ASM complexities.
o In many of the scenarios where reliable transport is deemed
important, BGP-based multicast (e.g. BGP-MVPN) has been used
instead of PORT.
Partly because of the above mentioned problems, some Data Center
operators have been avoiding deploying multicast in their networks.
BGP-MVPN [RFC6514] uses BGP to signal VPN customer multicast state
over provider networks. It removes the above mentioned problems from
the SP environment, and the deployment experiences have been
encouraging. While RFC 6514 makes it possible for an SP to provide
MVPN service without running PIM on its backbone, that RFC still
assumes that PIM (or mLDP) runs on the PE-CE links. [draft-ietf-bess-
mvpn-pe-ce] adapts the concept of BGP-MVPN to PE-CE links so that the
use of PIM on the PE-CE links can be eliminated (though the PIM-ASM
complexities still remains in the customer network), and this
document extends it further to general topologies, so that they can
be run on any router, as a replacement for PIM or mLDP.
With that, PIM can be completely eliminated from the network. PIM
soft state is replaced by BGP hard state. For ASM, source specific
trees are set up directly after simpler source discovery (data driven
on FHRs and control driven elsewhere), all based on BGP. All the
complexities related to source discovery and shared/source tree
switch are also eliminated. Additionally, the trees can be setup
with MPLS labels, with just minor enhancements in the signaling.
1.1.2. Labeled Multicast
There could be two forms of labeled multicast signaled by BGP. The
first one is labeled (x,g) multicast where 'x' stands for either 's'
or '*'. Basically, it is for BGP-signaled multicast tree as
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
described in previous section but with labels. The second one is for
mLDP tunnels with BGP signaling in part or whole through a BGP
domain.
For both cases, BGP is used because other label distribution
mechanisms like mLDP may not be desired by some operators. For
example, a DC operator may prefer to have a BGP-only deployment.
1.2. Overview
1.2.1. (x,g) Multicast
PIM-like functionality is provided, using BGP-based join/prune
signaling and BGP-based source discovery for ASM. The BGP-based join
signaling supports both labeled multicast and IP multicast.
The same RPF procedures as in PIM are used for each router to
determine the RPF neighbor for a particular source or RPA (in case of
Bidirectional Tree). Except in the Bidirectional Tree case and a
special case described in Section 1.2.1.2, no (*,G) join is used -
LHR routers discover the sources for ASM and then join towards the
sources directly. Data driven mechanisms like PIM Assert is replaced
by control driven mechanisms (Section 1.2.4).
The joins are carried in BGP Updates with MCAST-TREE SAFI and S-PMSI/
Leaf A-D routes defined in this document. The updates are targeted
at the upstream neighbor by use of Route Targets. There are three
benefits of using S-PMSI/Leaf routes for this purpose: a) when the
routes go through RRs, we have to distinguish different routes based
on upstream router and downstream router. This leads to Leaf routes.
b) for labeled bidirectional trees, we need to signal "upstream fec".
S-PMSI suits this very well. c) we may want to allow the option of
setting up trees or parts of a tree from the root/upstream towards
leaves/downstream and S-PMSI suits that very well.
If the BGP updates carry labels (via Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]), then (s,g) multicast traffic can use
the labels. This is very similar to mLDP Inband Signaling [RFC6826],
except that there are no corresponding "mLDP tunnels" for the PIM
trees. Similar to mLDP, labeled traffic on transit LANs are point to
point. Of course, traffic sent to receivers on a LAN by a LHR is
native multicast.
For labeled bidirectional (*,g) trees, downstream traffic (away from
the RPA) can be forwarded as in the (s,g) case. For upstream traffic
(towards RPA), the upstream neighbor needs to advertise a label for
its downstream neighbors. The same label that the upstream neighbor
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
advertises to its upstream is the same one that it advertises to its
downstreams, using an S-PMSI A-D route.
1.2.1.1. Source Discovery for ASM
This document does not support ASM via shared trees (aka RP Tree, or
RPT) with one exception discussed in the next section. Instead,
FHRs, LHRs, and optionally RRs work together to propagate/discover
source information via control plane and LHRs join source specific
Shortest Path Trees (SPT) directly.
A FHR originates Source Active A-D routes upon discovering sources
for particular flows and advertise them to its peers. It is desired
that the SA routes only reach LHRs that are interested in receiving
the traffic. To achieve that, the SA routes carry an IPv4 or IPv6
address specific Route Target. The Global Administrator field is set
the group address of the flow, and the Local Administrator field is
set to 0 or a pre-assigned domain-wide unique value that identifies a
VPN. An LHR advertises Route Target Membership routes, with the
Route Target field in the NLRI set according to the groups it wants
to receive traffic for, as how a FHR encode the Route Target in its
Source Active routes. The propagation of the SA routes is subject to
cooperative export filtering as specified in [RFC4684] and referred
to as RTC mechanism in this document. That way, the LHR only
receives Source Active routes for groups that it is interested in.
Typically, a set of RRs are used and they maintains all Source Active
routes but only distribute to interested LHRs on demand (upon
receiving corresponding Route Target Membership routes, which are
triggered on LHRs when they receive IGMP/MLD membership routes). The
rest of the document assumes that RRs are used, even though that is
not required.
1.2.1.2. ASM Shared-tree-only Mode
It may be desired that only a shared tree is used to distribute all
traffic for a particular ASM group from its RP to all LHRs, as
described in Section 4.1 "PIM Shared Tree Forwarding" of [RFC7438].
This will significantly cut down the number of trees and works out
very well in certain deployment scenarios. For example, all the
sources could be connected to the RP, or clustered close to RP. In
the latter case, either the path from FHRs to the RP do not intersect
the shared tree so native forwarding can be used between the FHRs and
the RP, or other means outside of this document could be used to
forward traffic from FHRs to the RP.
For native forwarding from FHRs to the RP, SA routes may be used to
announce the sources so that the RP can join source specific trees to
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
pull traffic, but the group specific Route Target is not needed. The
LHRs do not advertise the group specific Route Target Membership
routes as they do not need the SA routes.
To establish the shared tree, (*,g) Leaf A-D routes are used as in
the bidirectional tree case, though no forwarding state is
established to forward traffic from downstream neighbors.
1.2.1.3. Integration with BGP-MVPN
For each VPN, the Source Active routes distribution in that VPN do
not have to involve PEs at all unless there are sources/receivers
directly connected to some PEs and they are independent of MVPN SA
routes. For example, FHRs and LHRs establish BGP sessions with RRs
of that particular VPN for the purpose of SA distribution.
After source discovery, BGP multicast signaling is done from LHRs
towards the sources. When the signaling reaches an egress PE, BGP-
MVPN signaling takes over, as if a PIM (s,g) join/prune was received
on the PE-CE interface. When the BGP-MVPN signaling reaches the
ingress PE, BGP multicast signaling as specified in this document
takes over, similar to how BGP-MVPN triggers PIM (s,g) join/prune on
PE-CE interfaces.
1.2.2. BGP Inband Signaling for mLDP Tunnel
Part of an (or the whole) mLDP tunnel can also be signaled via BGP
and seamlessly integrated with the rest of mLDP tunnel signaled
natively via mLDP. All the procedures are similar to mLDP except
that the signaling is done via BGP. The mLDP FEC is encoded as the
BGP NLRI, with MCAST-TREE SAFI and S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes for
C-multicast mLDP defined in this document. The Leaf A-D routes
correspond to mLDP Label Mapping messages, and the S-PMSI A-D routes
are used to signal upstream FEC for MP2MP mLDP tunnels, similar to
the bidirectional (*,g) case.
1.2.3. BGP Sessions
In order for two BGP speakers to exchange MCAST-TREE NLRI, they must
use BGP Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] to ensure that they both
are capable of properly processing the MCAST-TREE NLRI. This is done
as specified in [RFC4760], by using a capability code 1
(multiprotocol BGP) with an AFI of IPv4 (1) or IPv6 (2) and a SAFI of
MCAST-TREE with a value to be assigned by IANA.
How the BGP peer sessions are provisioned, whether EBGP or IBGP,
whether statically, automatically (e.g., based on IGP neighbor
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
discovery), or programmably via an external controller, is outside
the scope of this document.
In case of IBGP, it could be that every router peering with Route
Reflectors, or hop by hop IBGP sessions could be used to exchange
MCAST-TREE NLRIs for joins. In the latter case, unless desired
otherwise for reasons outside of the scope of this document, the hop
by hop IBGP sessions SHOULD only be used to exchange MCAST-TREE
NLRIs.
When multihop BGP is used, a router advertises its local interface
addresses, for the same purposes that the Address List TLV in LDP
serves. This is achieved by advertising the interface address as
host prefixes with IPv4/v6 Address Specific ECs corresponding to the
router's local addresses used for its BGP sessions (Section 2.1.5).
Because the BGP Capability Advertisement is only between two peers,
when the sessions are only via RRs, a router needs another way to
determine if its neighbor is capable of signaling multicast via BGP.
The interface address advertisement can be used for that purpose -
the inclusion of a Session Address EC indicates that the BGP speaker
identified in the EC supports the C-Multicast NLRI.
FHRs and LHRs may also establish BGP sessions to some Route
Reflectors for source discovery purpose (Section 1.2.1.1).
With the traditional PIM, the FHRs and LHRs refer to the PIM DRs on
the source or receiver networks. With BGP based multicast, PIM may
not be running at all, and the FHRs and LHRs refer to the IGMP/MLD
queriers, or the DF elected per [I-D.wijnands-bier-mld-lan-election].
Alternatively, if it is known that a network only has senders then no
IGMP/MLD or DF election is needed - any router may generate SA
routes. That will not cause any issue other than redundant SA routes
being originated.
1.2.4. LAN and Parallel Links
There could be parallel links between two BGP peers. A single multi-
hop session, whether IBGP or EBGP, between loopback addresses may be
used. Except for LAN interfaces in case of unlabeled (x,g)
unidirectional trees (note that transit LAN interface is not
supported for BGP signaled (*,g) bidirectional tree and for mLDP
tunnels, traffic on transit LAN is point to point between neighbors),
any link between the two peers can be automatically used by a
downstream peer to receive traffic from the upstream peer, and it is
for the upstream peer to decide which link to use. If one of the
links goes down, the upstream peer switches to a different link and
there is no change needed on the downstream peer.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
For unlabeled (x,g) unidirectional trees, the upstream peer MAY
prefer LAN interfaces to send traffic, since multiple downstream
peers may be reached simultaneously, or it may make a decision based
on local policy, e.g., for load balancing purpose. Because different
downstream peers might choose different upstream peers for RPF, when
an upstream peer decides to use a LAN interface to send traffic, it
originates an S-PMSI A-D route indicating that one or more LAN
interface will be used. The route carries Route Targets specific to
the LANs so that all the peers on the LANs import the route. If more
than one router originate the route specifying the same LAN for the
same (s,g) or (*,g) flow, then assert procedure based on the S-PMSI
A-D routes happens and assert losers will stop sending traffic to the
LAN.
1.2.5. Transition
A network currently running PIM can be incrementally transitioned to
BGP based multicast. At any time, a router supporting BGP based
multicast can use PIM with some neighbors (upstream or downstream)
and BGP with some other neighbors. PIM and BGP MUST not be used
simultaneously between two neighbors for multicast purpose, and
routers connected to the same LAN MUST be transitioned during the
same maintenance window.
In case of PIM-SSM, any router can be transitioned at any time
(except on a LAN). It may receive source tree joins from a mixed set
of BGP and PIM downstream neighbors and send source tree joins to its
upstream neighbor using either PIM or BGP signaling.
In case of PIM-ASM, the RPs are first upgraded to support BGP based
multicast. They learn sources either via PIM procedures from PIM
FHRs, or via Source Active A-D routes from BGP FHRs. In the former
case, the RPs can originate proxy Source Active A-D routes. There
may be a mixed set of RPs/RRs - some capable of both traditional PIM
RP functionalities while some only redistribute SA routes.
Then any routers can be transitioned incrementally. A transitioned
LHR router will pull Source Active A-D routes from the RPs/RRs when
they receive IGMP/MLD (*,G) joins for ASM groups, and may send either
PIM (s,g) joins or BGP Source Tree Join routes. A transitioned
transit router may receive (*,g) PIM joins but only send source tree
joins after pulling Source Active A-D routes from RPs/RRs.
Similarly, a network currently running mLDP can be incrementally
transitioned to BGP signaling. Without the complication of ASM, any
router can be transitioned at any time, even without the restriction
of coordinated transition on a LAN. It may receive mixed mLDP label
mapping or BGP updates from different downstream neighbors, and may
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
exchange either mLDP label mapping or BGP updates with its upstream
neighbors, depending on if the neighbor is using BGP based signaling
or not.
1.2.6. Inter-region Multicast
An end-to-end multicast tree or P2MP tunnel may span multiple
regions, where a region could be an IGP area (or even a sub-area) or
an Autonomous System (AS), and different multicast signaling could be
used in different regions. There are several situations to consider.
1.2.6.1. Inband Signaling across a Region
With inband signaling, the multicast tree/tunnel is signaled through
a region and internal routers in the region maintain corresponding
per-tree/tunnel state. A downstream region and an upstream region
may use the same or different signaling. For example, An (*/s, g) IP
multicast tree with BGP signaling in a downstream region can be
signaled with mLDP Inband Signaling [RFC6826] or with PIM across the
upstream region, and a p2mp tunnel with BGP signaling in the
downstream region can be signaled with mLDP across the upstream
region, or vice versa. A RBR will stitch the upstream portion (e.g
PIM/mLDP-signaled) to downstream portion (e.g BGP-signaled).
If all routers in the region have route towards the source/root of
the tree/tunnel then there is nothing different from the intra-region
case. On the other hand, if internal routers do not have route
towards the source/root, e.g. as with Seamless MPLS
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] or Seamless SR
[I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr], the internal routers need to do
RPF towards an upstream Regional Border Router (RBR). To signal the
RBR information to an internal upstream router, one of the following
ways is used depending on the signaling method:
o With BGP signaling, the Leaf A-D Route carries a new BGP Extended
Community referred to as Multicast RPF Address EC, similar to PIM
RPF Vector [RFC5496] and mLDP Recursive FEC [RFC6512]
o With PIM signaling, PIM RPF Vector is used.
o With mLDP signaling, mLDP Recursive FEC is used.
1.2.6.2. Overlay Signaling Over a Region
With overlay signaling, a downstream RBR signals to its upstream RBR
over the region and the internal routers do not maintain the state of
the (overlay) tree/tunnel. This can be done with one of the
following methods:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
o mLDP P2MP tunnels can be signaled over the region via targeted LDP
sessions [RFC7060]
o Both IP multicast tree and mLDP P2MP tunnels can be signaled over
a region via BGP-MVPN procedures [RFC6514].
o Both IP multicast tree and mLDP P2MP tunnels can be signaled over
a region via BGP as discussed in the rest of this section.
All three methods are actually very similar in concept. The upstream
RBR tunnels packets to the downstream RBR, just as in the intra-
region case when two routers on the tree/tunnel are not directly
connected. The rest of this section only discusses BGP signaling.
When a downstream RBR determines that the route towards the source/
root has a BGP Next Hop towards a BGP speaker capable of multicast
signaling via BGP as specified in this document, it signals to that
BGP speaker (via a RR or not).
Suppose an upstream RBR receives the signaling for the same tree/
tunnel from several downstream RBRs. It could use Ingress
Replication to replicate packets directly to those downstream RBRs,
or it could use underlay P2MP tunnels instead.
In the latter case, the upstream RBR advertises an S-PMSI A-D route
with a Provider Tunnel Attribute (PTA) specifying the underlay
tunnel. This is very much like the "mLDP Over Targeted Sessions"
[RFC7060] or BGP-MVPN [RFC6514] (though MCAST-VPN's C-Muilticast
routes are replaced with MCAST-TREE's Leaf A-D routes). If the
mapping between overlay tree/tunnel and underlay tunnel is one-to-
one, the MPLS Label field in the PTA is set to 0 or otherwise set to
a Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) label [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-
aggregation-label] or an upstream-assigned label corresponding to the
overlay tree/tunnel.
The underlay tunnel, whether P2P to individual downstream RBRs or
P2MP to the set of downstream RBRs, can be of any type including
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] policies [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].
1.2.6.3. Controller Based Signaling
[I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller] specifies the procedures for
a controller to signal multicast forwarding state to each router on a
multicast tree based on the controller's computation. Depending on
deployment scenarios, in inter-region cases it is possible that the
hop-by-hop signaling specified in this document and the controller
based signaling may be used in different regions.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
Consider a situation where an ABR is connected three regions A, B,
and C, where hop-by-hop signaling is used in A and B, while
controller based signaling is used in C.
For a particular multicast tree, A is the upstream region, while B
and C are two downstream regions. The ABR receives a Leaf A-D route
from region B and a Leaf A-D route from C's controller, and sends a
Leaf A-D route to its upstream router in A.
For a different tree, C is the upstream region while A and B are
downstream. The ABR receives two Leaf A-D routes for the tree from
regions A and B, and one Leaf A-D route from C's controller. Note
that the ABR needs to signal to the controller that it is a leaf of
the tree (because of the Leaf A-D routes received from regions A and
B).
For both cases, the ABR stitches together different segments in
different regions by creating forwarding state based on the Leaf A-D
routes (optionally based on the S-PMSI A-D routes in region A and B
in addition.)
1.2.7. BGP Classful Transport Planes
[I-D.kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes] specifies a framework
for classifying underlay routes into transport classes and mapping
service routes to specific transport classes. An underlay route
signaled with BGP-CT SAFI carries a Transport Class Route Target (TC-
RT) to both indicate the transport class that the route belongs to
and to control the propagation and importation of the underlay route.
The recipient of the underlay routes use the TC-RT to determine how
the Protocol NH (PNH) is resolved. A service/overlay route may carry
a mapping community that maps to a transport class that is used to
resolve the service route's PNH.
In case of multicast, the selection of the link/tunnel between an
upstream and downstream tree node may be subject to the transport
class that the tree is for (in case of an underlay tree) or the class
of transport that the tree should use (in case of an overlay tree).
In both the underlay and overlay case, the transport class is
indicated by a mapping community attached to the BGP multicast
routes, which could be a color community or any community intended
for mapping to the transport.
The mapping community not only affects an upstream node's selection
of link/tunnel to a downstream node, but may also affect a downstream
node's selection of its upstream node (i.e. the RPF procedure).
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
1.2.8. Flexible Algorithm and Multi-topology
Similar to classful transport, in case of multi-topology [RFC4915]
[RFC5120] or Flexible Algorithm [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo], a multicast
tree may be required to do RPF based on a particular topology or
Flexible Algorithm (IPA). To signal that, the BGP-MCAST Leaf A-D
route may carry an extended community to encode the topology and/or
IPA. Note that this could also be an operator defined mapping
community that maps to a transport class (that is associated with a
topology or a Flexible Algorithm).
In the grand scheme of inter-region scenario, if mLDP is to be used
with Flexible Algorithm or Multi-topology for signaling in a
particular region, [I-D.wijnands-mpls-mldp-multi-topology] specifies
how topology and/or IPA are encoded.
Similarly, in case of PIM, [RFC6420] specifies how topology
information is encoded in PIM signaling and similar mechanism can be
specified for Flexible Algorithm. However, that, and potentially
encoding transport class in PIM/mLDP are outside the scope of this
document.
2. Specification
2.1. BGP NLRIs and Attributes
The BGP Multiprotocol Extensions [RFC4760] allow BGP to carry routes
from multiple different "AFI/SAFIs". This document defines a new
SAFI known as a MCAST-TREE SAFI with a value to be assigned by the
IANA. This SAFI is used along with the AFI of IPv4 (1) or IPv6 (2).
The MCAST-TREE NLRI defined below is carried in the BGP UPDATE
messages [RFC4271] using the BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760]
with a AFI of IPv4 (1) or IPv6 (2) assigned by IANA and a MCAST-TREE
SAFI with a value to be assigned by the IANA.
The Next hop field of MP_REACH_NLRI attribute SHALL be interpreted as
an IPv4 address whenever the length of the Next Hop address is 4
octets, and as an IPv6 address whenever the length of the Next Hop is
address is 16 octets.
The NLRI field in the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI is a prefix
with a maximum length of 12 octets for IPv4 AFI and 36 octets for
IPv6 AFI. The following is the format of the MCAST-TREE NLRI:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
+-----------------------------------+
| Route Type (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Route Type specific (variable) |
+-----------------------------------+
The Route Type field defines encoding of the rest of the MCAST-TREE
NLRI. (Route Type specific MCAST-TREE NLRI).
The Length field indicates the length in octets of the Route Type
specific field of MCAST-TREE NLRI.
The following new route types are defined:
3 - S-PMSI A-D Route for (x,g)
4 - Leaf A-D Route
5 - Source Active A-D Route
0x43 - S-PMSI A-D Route for C-multicast mLDP
Except for the Source Active A-D routes, the routes are to be
consumed by targeted upstream/downstream neighbors, and are not
propagated further. This can be achieved by outbound filtering based
on the RTs that lead to the importation of the routes.
The Type-3/4 routes MAY carry a Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA)
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. The Type-0x43 route MUST carry a TEA.
When used for mLDP, the Type-4 route MUST carry a TEA. Only the MPLS
tunnel type for the TEA is considered. Others are outside the scope
of this document.
2.1.1. S-PMSI A-D Route
Similar to defined in RFC 6514, an S-PMSI A-D Route Type specific
MCAST-TREE NLRI consists of the following:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
+-----------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Source (variable) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Group (variable) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Upstream Router's IP Address |
+-----------------------------------+
If the Multicast Source (or Group) field contains an IPv4 address,
then the value of the Multicast Source (or Group) Length field is 32.
If the Multicast Source (or Group) field contains an IPv6 address,
then the value of the Multicast Source (or Group) Length field is
128.
Usage of other values of the Multicast Source Length and Multicast
Group Length fields is outside the scope of this document.
There are two usages for S-PMSI A-D route. They're described in
Section 2.2.5 and Section 2.2.6 respectively.
2.1.2. Leaf A-D Route
Similar to the Leaf A-D route in [RFC6514], a MCAST-TREE Leaf A-D
route's route key includes the corresponding x-PMSI NLRI, plus the
Originating Router's IP Addr.
+-----------------------------------+
| x-PMSI NLRI |
+-----------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Address |
+-----------------------------------+
For example, the entire NLRI of a Leaf A-D route for (x,g) tree is as
following:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
+- +-----------------------------------+
| | Route Type - 4 (Leaf A-D) |
| +-----------------------------------+
| | Length (1 octet) |
| +- +-----------------------------------+ --+
| | | Route Type - 3 (S-PMSI A-D) | |
L | L | +-----------------------------------+ | S
E | E | | Length (1 octet) | | |
A | A | +-----------------------------------+ | P
F | F | | RD (8 octets) | | M
| | +-----------------------------------+ | S
| | | Multicast Source Length (1 octet) | | I
| | +-----------------------------------+ | I
N | R | | Multicast Source (variable) | |
L | O | +-----------------------------------+ |
R | U | | Multicast Group Length (1 octet) | | N
I | T | +-----------------------------------+ | L
| E | | Multicast Group (variable) | | R
| | +-----------------------------------+ | I
| K | | Upstream Router's IP Address | |
| E | +-----------------------------------+ --+
| Y | | Originating Router's IP Address |
+- +- +-----------------------------------+
Even though the MCAST-TREE Leaf A-D route is unsolicited, unlike the
Leaf A-D route for GTM in [RFC7524], it is encoded as if a
corresponding S-PMSI A-D route had been received.
When used for signaling mLDP tunnels, even though the Leaf A-D route
is unsolicited, unlike the "Route-type 0x44 Leaf A-D route for
C-multicast mLDP" as in [RFC7441], it is Route-type 4 and encoded as
if a corresponding S-PMSI A-D route had been received.
2.1.3. Source Active A-D Route
Similar to defined in RFC 6514, a Source Active A-D Route Type
specific MCAST NLRI consists of the following:
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
+-----------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Source (variable) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Multicast Group (variable) |
+-----------------------------------+
The definition of the source/length and group/length fields are the
same as in the S-PMSI A-D routes.
Usage of Source Active A-D routes is described in Section 1.2.1.1.
2.1.4. S-PMSI A-D Route for C-multicast mLDP
The route is used to signal upstream FEC for an MP2MP mLDP tunnel.
The route key include the mLDP FEC and the Upstream Router's IP
Address field. The encoding is similar to the same route in
[RFC7441].
2.1.5. Session Address Extended Community
For two BGP speakers to determine if they are directly connected,
each will advertise their local interface addresses, with an Session
Address Extended Community. This is an IPv4/IPv6 Address Specific EC
with the Global Admin Field set to the local address used for its
multihop sessions and the Local Admin Field set to the prefix length
corresponding to the interface's network mask.
For example, if a router has two interfaces with address
10.10.10.1/24 and 10.12.0.1/16 respectively (notice the different
network mask), and a loopback address 11.11.11.1/32 that is used for
BGP sessions, then it will advertise prefix 10.10.10.1/32 with a
Session Address EC 11.11.11.1:24 and 10.12.0.1/32 with a Session
Address EC 11.11.11.1:16. If it also uses another loopback address
11.11.11.11/32 for other BGP sessions, then the routes will
additionally carry Session Address EC 11.11.11.11:24 and
11.11.11.11:16 respectively.
This achieves what the Address List TLV in LDP Address Messages
achieves, and can also be used to indicate that a router supports the
BGP multicast signaling procedures specified in this document.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
Only those interface addresses that will be used as resolved nexthops
in the RIB need to be advertised with the Session Address EC. For
example, the RPF lookup may say that the resolved nexthop address is
A1, so the router needs to find out the corresponding BGP speaker
with address A1 through the (interface address, session address)
mapping built according to the interface address NLRI with the
Session Address EC. For comparison with LDP, this is done via the
(interface address, session address) mapping that is built by the LDP
Address Messages.
2.1.6. Multicast RPF Address Extended Community
This is an IP or IPv6 Address Specific EC with the Global Admin Field
set to the address of the upstream RBR and the Local Admin Field set
to 0.
2.1.7. Topology/IPA Extended Community
This is an Transitive Opaque Extended Community with the following
format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x03 | Sub-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPA | MT-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPA is the Flexible Algorithm number and MT-ID is the Multi-Topology
Identifier to be used for setting a multicast tree.
2.2. Procedures
2.2.1. Source Discovery for ASM
When a FHR first receives a multicast packet addressed to an ASM
group, it originates a Source Active route. It carries a IP/IPv6
Address Specific RT, with the Global Admin Field set to the group
address and the Local Admin Field set to 0. The route is advertised
to its peers, who will re-advertise further based on the RTC
mechanisms. Note that typically the route is advertised only to the
RRs.
The FHRs withdraws the Source Active route after a certain amount of
time since it last received a packet of an (s,g) flow. The amount of
time to wait is a local matter.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
2.2.2. Originating Tree Join Routes
Note that in this document, tree join routes are S-PMSI/Leaf A-D
routes.
2.2.2.1. (x,g) Multicast Tree
When a router learns from IGMP/MLD or a downstream PIM/BGP peer that
it needs to join a particular (s,g) tree, it determines the RPF
nexthop address wrt the source, following the same RPF procedures as
defined for PIM. It further finds the BGP router that advertised the
nexthop address as one of its local addresses.
If the RPF neighbor supports MCAST-TREE SAFI, this router originates
a Leaf A-D route. Although it is unsolicited, it is constructed as
if there was a corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. The Upstream Router's
IP Address field is set to the RPF neighbor's session address (learnt
via the EC attached to the host route for the RPF nexthop address).
An Address Specific RT corresponding to the session address is
attached to the route, with the Global Administrative Field set to
the session address and the local administrative field set to 0 or a
pre-assigned domain-wide unique value that identifies a VPN.
Similarly, when a router learns that it needs to join a bi-
directional tree for a particular group, it determines the RPF
neighbor wrt the RPA. If the neighbor supports MCAST-TREE SAFI, it
originates a Leaf A-D Route and advertises the route to the RPF
neighbor (in case of EBGP or hop-by-hop IBGP), or one or more RRs.
When a router first learns that it needs to receive traffic for an
ASM group, either because of a local (*,g) IGMP/MLD report or a
downstream PIM (*,g) join, it originates a RTC route with the NLRI's
AS field set to its AS number and the Route Target field set to an
address based RT, with the Global Administrator field set to group
address and the Local Administrator field set to 0 or a pre-assigned
domain-wide unique value that identifies a VPN. The route is
advertised to its peers (most practically some RRs), so that the
router can receive matching Source Active A-D routes. Upon the
receiving of the Source Active A-D routes, the router originates Leaf
A-D routes as described above, as long as it still needs to receive
traffic for the flows (i.e., the corresponding IGMP/MLD membership
exists or join from downstream PIM/BGP neighbor exists).
When a Leaf A-D route is originated by this router, it sets up
corresponding forwarding state such that the expected incoming
interface list includes all non-LAN interfaces directly connecting to
the upstream neighbor. LAN interfaces are added upon receiving
corresponding S-PMSI A-D route (Section 2.2.5.2). If the upstream
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
neighbor is not directly connected, tunnels may be used - details to
be included in future revisions.
When the upstream neighbor changes, the previously advertised Leaf
A-D route is withdrawn. If there is a new upstream neighbor, a new
Leaf A-D route is originated, corresponding to the new neighbor.
Because NLRIs are different for the old and new Leaf A-D routes,
make-before-break as well as MoFRR [RFC7431] can be achieved.
2.2.2.2. BGP Inband Signaling for mLDP Tunnel
The same mLDP procedures as defined in [RFC6388] are followed, except
that where a label mapping message is sent in [RFC6388], a Leaf A-D
route is sent if the the upstream neighbor supports BGP based
signaling.
2.2.3. Receiving Tree Join Routes
A router (auto-)configures Import RTs matching itself so that it can
import tree join routes from their peers. Note that in this
document, tree join routes are S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes.
When a router receives a tree join route and imports it, it
determines if it needs to originate its own corresponding route and
advertise further upstream wrt the source/RPA or mLDP tunnel root.
If this router is the FHR or is on the RPL or is the tunnel root,
then it does not need to. Otherwise the procedures in Section 2.2.2
are followed.
Additionally, the router sets up its corresponding forwarding state
such that traffic will be sent to the downstream neighbor, and
received from the downstream neighbor in case of bidirectional tree/
tunnel. If the downstream neighbor is not directly connected,
tunnels may be used - details to be included in future revisions.
2.2.4. Withdrawl of Tree Join Routes
For a particular tree or tunnel, if a downstream neighbor withdraws
its Leaf A-D route, the neighbor is removed from the corresponding
forwarding state. If all downstream neighbors withdraw their tree
join routes and this router no longer has local receivers, it
withdraws the tree join routes that it previously originated.
As mentioned earlier, when the upstream neighbor changes, the
previously advertised Leaf A-D route is also withdrawn. The
corresponding incoming interfaces are also removed from the
corresponding forwarding state.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
2.2.5. LAN procedures for (x,g) Unidirectional Tree
For a unidirectional (x,g) multicast tree, if there is a LAN
interface connecting to the downstream neighbor, it MAY be preferred
over non-LAN interfaces, but an S-PMSI A-D route MUST be originated
to facilitate the analog of the Assert process (Section 2.2.5.1).
2.2.5.1. Originating S-PMSI A-D Routes
If this router chooses to use a LAN interface to send traffic to its
neighbors for a particular (s,g) or (*,g) flow, it MUST announce that
by originating a corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. The Tunnel Type in
the PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) is set to 0 (no tunnel information
Present). The LAN interface is identified by an IP address specific
RT, with the Global Administrative Field set to the LAN interface's
address prefix and the Local Administrative Field set to the prefix
length. The RT also serves the purpose of restricting the importing
of the route by all routers on the LAN. An operator MUST ensure that
RTs encoded as above are not used for other purposes. Practically
that should not be unreasonable.
If multiple LAN interfaces are to be used (to reach different sets of
neighbors), then the route will include multiple RTs, one for each
used LAN interface as described above.
The S-PMSI A-D routes may also be used to announce tunnels that could
be used to send traffic to downstream neighbors that are not directly
connected. Details may be added in future revisions.
2.2.5.2. Receiving S-PMSI A-D Routes
A router (auto-)configures an Import RT for each of its LAN
interfaces over which BGP is used for multicast signaling. The
construction of the RT is described in the previous section.
When a router R1 imports an S-PMSI A-D route for flow (x,g) from
router R2, R1 checks to see if it also originating an S-PMSI A-D
route with the same NLRI except the Upstream Router's IP Address
field. When a router R1 originates an S-PMSI A-D route, it checks to
see if it also has installed an S-PMSI A-D route, from some other
router R2, with the same NLRI except the Upstream Router's IP Address
field. In either case, R1 checks to see if the two routes have an RT
in common and the RT is encoded as in Section 2.2.5.1. If so, then
there is a LAN attached to both R1 and R2, and both routers are
prepared to send (S,G) traffic onto that LAN. This kicks off the
assert procedure to elect a winner - the one with the highest
Upstream Router's IP Address in the NLRI wins. An assert loser will
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
not include the corresponding LAN interface in its outgoing interface
list, but it keeps the S-PMSI A-D route that it originates.
If this router does not have a matching S-PMSI route of its own with
some common RTs, and the originator of the received S-PMSI route is a
chosen upstream neighbor for the corresponding flow, then this router
updates its forwarding state to include the LAN interface in the
incoming interface list. When the last S-PMSI route with a RT
matching the LAN is withdrawn later, the LAN interface is removed
from the incoming interface list.
Note that a downstream router on the LAN does not participate in the
assert procedure. It adds/keeps the LAN interface in the expected
incoming interfaces as long as its chosen upstream peer originates
the S-PMSI AD route. It does not switch to the assert winner as its
upstream. An assert loser MAY keep sending joins upstream based on
local policy even if it has no other downstream neighbors (this could
be used for fast switch over in case the assert winner would fail).
2.2.6. Distributing Label for Upstream Traffic for Bidirectional Tree/
Tunnel
For MP2MP mLDP tunnels or labeled (*,g) bidirectional trees, an
upstream router needs to advertise a label to all its downstream
neighbors so that the downstream neighbors can send traffic to
itself.
For MP2MP mLDP tunnels, the same procedures for mLDP are followed
except that instead of MP2MP-U Label Mapping messages, S-PMSI A-D
Routes for C-Multicast mLDP are used.
For labeled (*,g) bidirectional trees, for a Leaf A-D route received
from a downstream neighbor, a corresponding S-PMSI A-D route is sent
back to the downstream router.
In both cases, a single S-PMSI A-D route is originated for each tree
from this router, but with multiple RTs (one for each downstream
neighbor on the tree). A TEA specifies a label allocated by the
upstream router for its downstream neighbors to send traffic with.
Note that this is still a "downstream allocated" label (the upstream
router is "downstream" from traffic direction point of view).
The S-PMSI routes do not carry a PTA, unless a P2MP tunnel is used to
reach downstream neighbors. Such use case is out of scope of this
document for now and may be specified in the future.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to assign a new BGP SAFI value for the
MCAST-TREE SAFI.
This document requests IANA to create a new "BGP MCAST-TREE Route
Types" registry, referencing this document. The following initial
values are defined:
0~2 - Reserved
3 - S-PMSI A-D Route for (x,g)
4 - Leaf A-D Route
5 - Source Active A-D Route
0x43 - S-PMSI A-D Route for C-multicast mLDP
This document requests IANA to assign two Sub-type values from
Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-types
Registry for Session Address EC and Multicast RPF Address EC
respectively.
This document requests IANA to assign two Sub-Type values from
Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Community Types Registry
for Session Address EC and Multicast RPF Address EC respectively.
This document requests IANA to assign one Sub-Type value from
Transitive Opaque Extended Community Types Registry for the Topology/
IPA EC.
4. Security Considerations
This document shares many of the mechanisms and concepts of MVPN and,
accordingly, can reuse many of the security considerations described
in RFC6513 and RFC6514, though the distinctions made on PE-CE links
and relationships in those documents are not relevant.
This document describes interworking with several multicast control
protocols, including PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, PIM-Bidir, mLDP and IGMP/MLD.
Security considerations specified for those protocols are applicable
to this document.
Implementations should include Multicast Damping procedures specified
in RFC7899 to protect the control plane from excessive churn due to
multicast dynamicity. Implementations should also include the
ability to rate-limit join state creation on a per-peer and per-RIB
basis, as well as rate-limit Source Active A-D route propagation on a
per-source, per-peer and per-RIB basis to configurable thresholds.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Marco Rodrigues for his initial idea/ask of using
BGP for multicast signaling beyond MVPN. We thank Eric Rosen for his
questions, suggestions, and help finding solutions to some issues.
We also thank Luay Jalil, James Uttaro and Shraddha Hegde for their
comments and support for the work.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Patel, K., Velde, G. V. D., Sangli, S. R., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-
tunnel-encaps-22 (work in progress), January 2021.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.
[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>.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
[RFC7441] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., and U. Joorde, "Encoding
Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Forwarding Equivalence Classes
(FECs) in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes", RFC 7441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7441, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7441>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]
Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A.,
Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., Alston, A., and L. M.
Contreras, "Seamless SR Problem Statement", draft-hegde-
spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06 (work in progress), September
2021.
[I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller]
Zhang, Z., Raszuk, R., Pacella, D., and A. Gulko,
"Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling", draft-ietf-
bess-bgp-multicast-controller-07 (work in progress), July
2021.
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label]
Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I. Wijnands,
"MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels", draft-
ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-07 (work in
progress), December 2021.
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-pe-ce]
Patel, K., Rosen, E. C., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP as an MVPN
PE-CE Protocol", draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-pe-ce-01 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-18 (work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
(editor), D. V., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H.,
and Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint
Policy", draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-03 (work in
progress), August 2021.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14 (work in progress),
October 2021.
[I-D.kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes]
Vairavakkalai, K., Venkataraman, N., Rajagopalan, B.,
Mishra, G., Khaddam, M., Xu, X., Szarecki, R. J., and D.
J. Gowda, "BGP Classful Transport Planes", draft-kaliraj-
idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-12 (work in progress),
August 2021.
[I-D.wijnands-bier-mld-lan-election]
Wijnands, I., Pfister, P., and J. Zhang, "Generic
Multicast Router Election on LAN's", draft-wijnands-bier-
mld-lan-election-01 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.wijnands-mpls-mldp-multi-topology]
Wijnands, I., Raza, K., Mishra, M., Budhiraja, A., Zhang,
Z., and A. Gulko, "mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology
Routing", draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03 (work
in progress), October 2021.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5496>.
[RFC6420] Cai, Y. and H. Ou, "PIM Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) Join
Attribute", RFC 6420, DOI 10.17487/RFC6420, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6420>.
[RFC6512] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Napierala, M., and N. Leymann,
"Using Multipoint LDP When the Backbone Has No Route to
the Root", RFC 6512, DOI 10.17487/RFC6512, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6512>.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
[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>.
[RFC7060] Napierala, M., Rosen, E., and IJ. Wijnands, "Using LDP
Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions", RFC 7060,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7060, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7060>.
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7431>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Lenny Giuliano
Juniper Networks
EMail: lenny@juniper.net
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
EMail: keyur@arrcus.com
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft bgp-mcast January 2022
IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems
EMail: ice@cisco.com
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
EMail: mankamis@cisco.com
Arkadiy Gulko
Refinitiv
EMail: arkadiy.gulko@refinitiv.com
Zhang, et al. Expires July 11, 2022 [Page 28]