Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN
draft-ietf-bess-ir-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bess WG)
Authors Eric Rosen  , Karthik Subramanian  , Zhaohui Zhang 
Last updated 2016-08-10 (latest revision 2016-08-05)
Replaces draft-rosen-l3vpn-ir
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Thomas Morin
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-04-25)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to aretana@cisco.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
BESS Working Group                                         E. Rosen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Updates: 6513,6514 (if approved)                          K. Subramanian
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: February 6, 2017                                       Z. Zhang
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                          August 5, 2016

              Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN
                         draft-ietf-bess-ir-04

Abstract

   RFCs 6513, 6514, and other RFCs describe procedures by which a
   Service Provider may offer Multicast VPN service to its customers.
   These procedures create point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or multipoint-to-
   multipoint trees across the Service Provider's backbone.  One type of
   P2MP tree that may be used is known as an "Ingress Replication (IR)
   tunnel".  In an IR tunnel, a parent node need not be "directly
   connected" to its child nodes.  When a parent node has to send a
   multicast data packet to its child nodes, it does not use layer 2
   multicast, IP multicast, or MPLS multicast to do so.  Rather, it
   makes n individual copies, and then unicasts each copy, through an IP
   or MPLS unicast tunnel, to exactly one child node.  While the prior
   MVPN specifications allow the use of IR tunnels, those specifications
   are not always very clear or explicit about how the MVPN protocol
   elements and procedures are applied to IR tunnels.  This document
   updates RFCs 6513 and 6514 by adding additional details that are
   specific to the use of IR tunnels.

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 http://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 February 6, 2017.

Rosen, et al.           Expires February 6, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             IR Tunnels in MVPN                August 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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
   2.  What is an IR P-tunnel? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  How are IR P-tunnels Identified?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  How to Join an IR P-tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Advertised IR P-tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.1.  If the 'Leaf Info Required Bit' is Set  . . . . . . .  10
       4.1.2.  If the 'Leaf Info Required Bit' is Not Set  . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Unadvertised IR P-tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  The PTA's 'Tunnel Identifier' Field . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  A Note on IR P-tunnels and 'Discarding Packets from the Wrong
       PE' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  The PTA's 'MPLS Label' Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Leaf A-D Route Originated by an Egress PE . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Leaf A-D Route Originated by an Intermediate Node . . . .  16
     7.3.  Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  How A Child Node Prunes Itself from an IR P-tunnel  . . . . .  17
   9.  Parent Node Actions Upon Receiving Leaf A-D Route . . . . . .  18
   10. Use of Timers when Switching UMH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Show full document text