Skip to main content

Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing P2MP and Ingress Replication
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bess WG)
Authors Rishabh Parekh , Clarence Filsfils , Arvind Venkateswaran , Hooman Bidgoli , Daniel Voyer , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Last updated 2022-07-02
Replaces draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
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-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-06
Network Working Group                                          R. Parekh
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track                        A. Venkateswaran
Expires: 3 January 2023                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              H. Bidgoli
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                D. Voyer
                                                             Bell Canada
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                             2 July 2022

    Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing P2MP and Ingress
                              Replication
                  draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-06

Abstract

   A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Tree in a Segment Routing domain carries
   traffic from a Root to a set of Leaves.  This document describes
   extensions to BGP encodings and procedures for P2MP trees and Ingress
   Replication used in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs and Ethernet VPNs in a Segment
   Routing domain.

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].

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 3 January 2023.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  SR P2MP P-Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  MPLS Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  SRv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  MVPN Auto-Discovery and Binding Procedures for P2MP Trees . .   6
     4.1.  Intra-AS I-PMSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.1.  Originating Intra-AS I-PMSI routes  . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.1.2.  Receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes  . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Using S-PMSIs for binding customer flows to P2MP
           Segments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  Originating S-PMSI A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Receiving S-PMSI A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Inter-AS P-tunnels using P2MP Segments  . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.1.  Advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI routes into iBGP  . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  Receiving Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes in iBGP  . . . .  10
     4.4.  Leaf A-D routes for P2MP Segment Leaf Discovery . . . . .  10
       4.4.1.  Originating Leaf A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.2.  Receiving Leaf A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  MVPN with Ingress Replication over Segment Routing  . . . . .  11
     5.1.  SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  SRv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.1.  SRv6 Multicast Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Dampening of MVPN routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  SR P2MP Trees for EVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs [RFC6513] and BGP Encodings and
   Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs [RFC6514] specify
   procedures that allow a Service Provider to provide Multicast VPN
   (MVPN) service to its customers.  Multicast traffic from a customer
   is tunneled across the service provider network over Provider Tunnels
   (P-Tunnels).  P-Tunnels can be instantiated via different
   technologies.  A service provider network that uses Segment Routing
   can use a Point-to-Multipoint (SR P2MP) tree
   [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] or P2MP Ingress Replication to
   instantiate P-Tunnels for MVPN.  SR P2MP P-Tunnels can be realized
   both for SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and SRv6 [RFC8986][RFC8754].

   In a Segment Routing network, a P2MP tree allows efficient delivery
   of traffic from a Root to set of Leaf nodes.  A SR P2MP tree is
   defined by a SR P2MP Policy and instantiated via a PCE.  A P2MP
   Policy consists of a Root, a Set of Leaf Nodes and a set of candidate
   paths with optional set of constraints and/or optimization objectives
   to be satisfied by the P2MP tree.  A unique Identifier, called Tree-
   SID, is associated with a P2MP tree.  This Tree-SID can be an MPLS
   label or an IPv6 address.

   This document describes extensions to BGP Auto-Discovery procedures
   specified in RFC 6514 for SR P2MP P-Tunnels.  Use of PIM for Auto-
   Discovery is outside scope of this document.  Support for customer
   BIDIR-PIM is outside the scope of this document.

   For BGP MPLS Ethernet VPN specified in [RFC7432] and extensions to
   this document, P-Tunnels are advertised for handling multi-
   destination traffic.  These P-Tunnels can be realized by SR-MPLS or
   SRv6 P2MP trees.  SRv6 P2MP trees can also be used to support
   Multicast in Network Virtualization over Layer 3 [RFC8293].

   The reader is expected to be familiar with concepts and terminology
   of RFC 6513, RFC 6514 and SR P2MP drafts.

2.  SR P2MP P-Tunnels

   For MVPN or EVPN, Provider Edge(PE) routers steer customer traffic
   into a P-Tunnel that can be instantiated by a SR-MPLS or SRv6 P2MP.
   A SR P2MP tree is defined by a SR P2MP policy
   [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   Given a SR P2MP policy, a PCE computes and instantiates the SR P2MP
   tree on the nodes that are part of the tree by stitching Replication
   segments [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] at Root, Leaf and
   intermediate replication nodes.  Tree-SID is an unique identifier for
   the tree.  A Replication segment of a SR P2MP tree can be initiated
   by various methods (BGP, PCEP, others) which are outside the scope of
   this document.

   A PCE provides conceptual APIs, listed below, to define and modify SR
   P2MP policies SR P2MP Policy Section 4.1.1
   (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-
   00#section-4.1.1).  These APIs are invoked by a PCC, which is the
   root of P2MP tree, using various methods (BGP, PCEP, etc.) which are
   outside the scope of this document.

      CreatePolicy: CreateSRP2MPPolicy<Root, Tree-ID>

      DeletePolicy: DeleteSRP2MPPolicy<Root, Tree-ID>

      UpdateLeafSet: SRP2MPPolicyLeafSetModify<Root, Tree-ID, {Leaf
      Set}>

   The Root of a P2MP tree imposes the Tree-SID to steer the customer
   payload into the P2MP tree.  Provider (P) routers replicate customer
   payload, using Replication segments, towards the Leaf nodes of the
   P2MP tree.  Leaf nodes of the P2MP tree deliver the customer payload
   after disposing the Tree-SID.

   An Ingress PE can deliver payload to egress PEs of the service using
   Ingress Replication.  This payload is encapsulated in SR-MPLS or SRv6
   and replicated to each egress PE.

3.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP

   BGP PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) is defined in RFC 6514 to identify
   the P-Tunnel that is used to instantiate a Provider Multicast Service
   Interface (PMSI).  The PTA is carried in Intra-AS I-PMSI, Inter-AS
   I-PMSI, Selective PMSI, and Leaf Auto-Discovery routes.

   A P2MP tree PTA is constructed as specified below.

   *  Tunnel Type: The IANA assigned codepoint 0x0C for "SR-MPLS P2MP
      Tree" or codepoint
      // TBDfor "SRv6 P2MP Tree", from the "P-Multicast Service
      Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry.

   *  Flags: See Section 4 for use of "Leaf Info Required bit".

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   *  MPLS Label: See Section 3.1

   *  Tunnel Identifier: The SR P2MP P-Tunnel is identified by <Tree-ID,
      Root> where,

      -  Tree-ID is a 32-bit unsigned value that identifies a unique
         P2MP tree at a Root.

      -  Root is an IP address identifying the Root of a P2MP tree.
         This can be either an IPv4 or IPv6 address and can be inferred
         from the PTA length.

   When a P-Tunnel is non-segmented, the PTA is created by PE router at
   the Root of a SR P2MP tree.  For segmented P-Tunnels, each segment
   can be instantiated by a different technology.  If a segment is
   instantiated using P2MP tree, the router at the root of a P2MP tree
   creates the PTA.

3.1.  MPLS Label

   [RFC6514] allows a PE to aggregate two or more MVPNs onto one
   P-Tunnel by advertising the same P-Tunnel in PTA of Auto-Discovery
   routes of different MVPNs.  This section specifies how the "MPLS
   Label" field of PTA is filled to provide a context bound to a
   specific MVPN.  For EVPN considerations, see SR P2MP Trees for EVPN
   section.

3.1.1.  SR-MPLS

   When a SR P2MP P-Tunnel is shared across two or more MVPNs in a SR
   MPLS domain [RFC8660], the "MPLS Label" field of a PTA advertised in
   an Auto-Discovery route MUST contain an upstream-assigned MPLS label
   that the advertising PE has bound to the MVPN, or a label assigned
   from a global context such as "Domain- wide Common Block" (DCB) as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label].

   When a customer payload is steered into a shared SR P2MP P-Tunnel,
   this MPLS label MUST be imposed before the MPLS label representing
   the Tree-SID.

3.1.2.  SRv6

   When a SR P2MP P-Tunnel is shared across two or more MVPNs in a SRv6
   domain [RFC8986], the "MPLS Label" field of a PTA advertised in an
   Auto-Discovery route MUST contain an upstream-assigned SRv6 Multicast
   Service SID Section 5.2.1 that the advertising PE has bound to the
   MVPN, or a SRv6 Multicast Service SID assigned from a global context;
   this follows same concept of "Domain- wide Common Block" (DCB) label

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   as specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label].  The
   high order 20 bits of this field carry the whole or a portion of the
   Function part of the SRv6 Multicast Service SID when Transposition
   Scheme of encoding as defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] is
   used.  When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length
   of SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV of SRv6 Prefix-SID attribute (see
   below) MUST be less than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to the
   Function Length.  When Transposition shceme is not used, the label
   field MUST be set to zero and Transposition Length MUST be zero.

   The advertising ingress PE attaches a BGP Prefix-SID attribute
   [RFC8669] to Intra-AS I-PMSI, Inter-AS I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D routes
   with SRv6 L3 Service TLV [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] to signal SRv6
   Multicast Service SID.  The SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV carries the
   SRv6 Multicast Service SID in SRv6 SID Value field.  The SRv6
   Endpoint Behavior of the SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV encodes one of
   End.DTMC4, End.DTMC6 or End.DTMC46 codepoint values.  The SRv6 SID
   Structure Sub-Sub-TLV encodes the structure of SRv6 Multicast Service
   SID.  If Transposition scheme is used, the offset and length of SRv6
   Multicast Endpoint function of SRv6 Multicast Service SID is set in
   Transposition Length and Transposition Offset fields of this sub-sub
   TLV.  Otherwise, the Transposition Length and Offset fields MUST be
   set to zero.

   The ingress PE MUST encapsulate customer payload, steered into a
   shared SR P2MP P-Tunnel, in an outer IPv6 header with SRH in which
   the SRv6 Multicast Service SID MUST be the last segment in the
   segment list (note the SRv6 Multicast Service SID may be the only
   segment in SRH) . If Transposition scheme is used, ingress PE MUST
   merge Function in MPLS Label field of PTA with SRv6 SID in SID
   Information TLV using the Transposition Offset and Length fields from
   SID structure sub-sub TLV to create SRv6 Multicast Service SID

   The Egress PEs of a shared SR P2MP P-Tunnel use the SRv6 Multicast
   Service SID in SRH to determine the MVPN in which the customer
   payload is to be delivered.  An Egress PE, in role of Leaf or Bud
   Node of Replication Segment associated with shared SR-P2MP P-Tunnel
   tree, uses "look at next SID in SRH"
   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment] behavior to process the SRv6
   Multicast Service SID.

4.  MVPN Auto-Discovery and Binding Procedures for P2MP Trees

   RFC 6514 defines procedures for discovering PEs participating in a
   given MVPN and binding customer multicast flows to specific
   P-Tunnels.  This section specifies modifications to these procedures
   for SR P2MP tree P-Tunnels.  In this section, the term "SR P2MP"
   refers to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

4.1.  Intra-AS I-PMSI

   Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes are exchanged to discover PEs
   participating in a MVPN within an AS, or across different ASes when
   non-segmented P-Tunnels are used for inter-AS MVPNs.

4.1.1.  Originating Intra-AS I-PMSI routes

   RFC 6514 Section 9.1.1 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   9.1.1) describes procedures for originating Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
   routes.  For SR P2MP P-Tunnels, these procedures remain unchanged
   except as described in the following paragraphs.

   When a PE originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having
   SR P2MP P-Tunnel Type, it MUST create a P2MP policy by invoking
   CreatePolicy API of the PCE.  When the PCE instantiates the P2MP tree
   on the PE, the Tree-SID MUST be imposed for customer flow(s) steered
   into the P2MP tree.  The Leaf nodes of P2MP tree are discovered using
   procedures described in Section 4.1.2.

   For a PE in "Receiver Sites set", condition (c) is modified to
   include P2MP tree; such a PE MUST originate an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
   route when some PEs of the MVPN have VRFs that use SR P2MP tree but
   MUST NOT create a SR P2MP policy as described above.

   When a PE withdraws an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a
   PTA having SR P2MP P-Tunnel Type, the Tree-SID imposition state at
   the PE MUST be removed.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more Intra-AS I-PMSIs from different MVPNs
   onto the same SR P2MP P-Tunnel.  When a PE withdraws the last Intra-
   AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a PTA identifying a SR P2MP
   P-Tunnel , it SHOULD remove the SR P2MP policy by invoking
   DeletePolicy API of the PCE.

4.1.2.  Receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes

   Procedure for receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes, as described in
   RFC 6514 Section 9.1.2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   9.1.2), remain unchanged for SR P2MP P-Tunnels except as described in
   the following paragraphs.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   When a PE that advertises a SR P2MP P-Tunnel in the PTA of its Intra-
   AS I-PMSI A-D route, imports an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from some
   PE, it MUST add that PE as a Leaf node of the P2MP tree.  The
   Originating IP Address of the Intra-AS i-PMSI A-D route is used as
   the Leaf Address when invoking UpdateLeafSet API of the PCE.  This
   procedure MUST also be followed for all Intra-AS I-PMSI routes that
   are already imported when the PE advertises a SR P2MP P-Tunnel in PTA
   of its Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route.

   A PE that imports and processes an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from
   another PE with PTA having SR P2MP P-Tunnel MUST program the Tree-SID
   of the P2MP tree identified in the PTA of the route for disposition.
   Note that an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from another PE can be
   imported before the P2MP tree identified in the PTA of the route is
   instantiated by the PCE at the importing PE.  In such case, the PE
   MUST correctly program Tree-SID for disposition.  A PE in "Sender
   Sites set" MAY avoid programming the Tree-SID for disposition.

   When an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a PTA having SR
   P2MP P-Tunnel Type is withdrawn, a PE MUST remove the disposition
   state of the Tree-SID associated with P2MP tree.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more Intra-AS I-PMSIs from different MVPNs
   onto the same SR P2MP P-Tunnel.  When a remote PE withdraws an Intra-
   AS I-PMSI A-D route from a MVPN, and if this is the last MVPN sharing
   a SR P2MP P-Tunnel, a PE must remove the originating PE as a Leaf
   from the P2MP tree, by invoking UpdateLeafSet API.

4.2.  Using S-PMSIs for binding customer flows to P2MP Segments

   RFC 6514 specifies procedures for binding (C-S,C-G) customer flows to
   P-Tunnels using S-PMSI A-D routes.  Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-
   Discovery Routes [RFC6625] specifies additional procedures to binding
   aggregate customer flows to P-Tunnels using "wildcard" S-PMSI A-D
   routes.  This section describes modification to these procedures for
   SR P2MP P-Tunnels.

4.2.1.  Originating S-PMSI A-D routes

   RFC 6514 Section 12.1 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   12.1) describes procedures for originating S-PMSI A-D routes.  For SR
   P2MP P-Tunnels, these procedures remain unchanged except as described
   in the following paragraphs.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   When a PE originates S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having SR P2MP
   P-Tunnel Type, it MUST set the "Leaf Info Required bit" in the PTA.
   The PE MUST create a SR P2MP policy by invoking CreatePolicy API of
   the PCE.  When the PCE instantiates the P2MP tree on the PE, the
   Tree-SID MUST be imposed for customer flows steered into the SR P2MP
   P-Tunnel.

   The Leaf nodes of P2MP tree are discovered by Leaf A-D routes using
   procedures described in Section 4.4.2.  When a PE originates S-PMSI
   A-D route with a PTA having SR P2MP P-Tunnel Type, it is possible the
   PE might have imported Leaf A-D routes whose route keys match the
   S-PMSI A-D route.  The PE MUST re-apply procedures of Section 4.4.2
   to these Leaf A-D routes.

   When a PE withdraws a S-PMSI A-D route, advertised with PTA having
   P2MP tree P-Tunnel type, the Tree-SID imposition state MUST be
   removed.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more S-PMSIs onto the same SR P2MP
   P-Tunnel.  When a PE withdraws the last S-PMSI A-D route, advertised
   with a PTA identifying a specific SR P2MP P-Tunnel , it SHOULD remove
   the SR P2MP policy by invoking DeletePolicy API of the PCE.

4.2.2.  Receiving S-PMSI A-D routes

   RFC 6514 Section 12.3 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   12.3) describes procedures for receiving S-PMSI A-D routes.  For SR
   P2MP P-Tunnels, these procedures remain unchanged except as described
   in the following paragraphs.

   The procedure to join SR P2MP P-Tunnel of S-PMSI A-D route by using a
   Leaf A-D route is described in Section 4.4.1.  If P2MP tree
   identified in PTA of S-PMSI A-D route is already instantiated by PCE,
   the PE MUST program Tree-SID for disposition.  If the P2MP tree is
   instantiated later, the Tree-SID MUST be programmed for disposition
   at that time.

   When a S-PMSI A-D route, whose SR P2MP P-Tunnel has been joined by a
   PE, is withdrawn, or when conditions (see RFC 6514 Section 12.3
   (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-12.3)) required to join
   that P-Tunnel are no longer satisfied, the PE MUST leave the
   P-Tunnel.  The PE MUST withdraw the Leaf A-D route it had originated
   and remove the Tree-SID disposition state.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

4.3.  Inter-AS P-tunnels using P2MP Segments

   A segmented inter-AS P-Tunnel consists of one or more intra-AS
   segments, one in each AS, connected by inter-AS segments between
   ASBRs of different ASes https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   9.2.  These segments are constructed by PEs/ASBRs originating or re-
   advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.  This section describes
   procedures for instantiating intra-AS segments using SR P2MP trees.

4.3.1.  Advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI routes into iBGP

   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
   rfc6514#section-9.2.3.2) specifies procedures for advertising an
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route to construct an intra-AS segment.  The PTA
   of the route identifies the type and identifier of the P-Tunnel
   instantiating the intra-AS segment.  The procedure for creating SR
   P2MP P-Tunnel for intra-AS segment are same as specified in
   Section 4.2.1 except that instead of S-PMSI A-D routes, the
   procedures apply to Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.

4.3.2.  Receiving Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes in iBGP

   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.2 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
   rfc6514#section-9.2.3.2) specifies procedures for processing an
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route received via iBGP.  If the PTA of the
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route has SR P2MP P-Tunnel Type, the procedures
   are same as specified in Section 4.2.2 except that instead of S-PMSI
   A-D routes, the procedures apply to Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.  If
   the receiving router is an ASBR, the Tree-SID is stitched to the
   inter-AS segments to ASBRs in other ASes.

4.4.  Leaf A-D routes for P2MP Segment Leaf Discovery

   This section describes procedures for originating and processing Leaf
   A-D routes used for Leaf discovery of SR P2MP trees.

4.4.1.  Originating Leaf A-D routes

   The procedures for originating Leaf A-D route in response to
   receiving a S-PMSI or Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route with PTA having SR
   P2MP P-Tunnel Type are same as specified in RFC 6514
   Section 9.2.3.4.1 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   9.2.3.4.1).

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

4.4.2.  Receiving Leaf A-D routes

   Procedures for processing a received Leaf A-D route are specified in
   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.5 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/
   rfc6514#section-9.2.3.5).  These procedures remain unchanged for
   discovering Leaf nodes of P2MP trees except for considerations
   described in following paragraphs.  These procedures apply to Leaf
   A-D routes received in response to both S-PMSI and Inter-AS I-PMSI
   A-D routes, shortened to "A-D routes" in this section

   A Root PE/ASBR MAY use the same SR P2MP P-Tunnel in PTA of two or
   more A-D routes.  For such aggregated P2MP trees, the PE/ASBR may
   receive multiple Leaf A-D routes from a Leaf PE.  The P2MP tree for
   which a Leaf A-D is received can be identified by examining the P2MP
   tunnel Identifier in the PTA of A-D route that matches "Route Key"
   field of the Leaf A-D route.  When the PE receives the first Leaf A-D
   route from a Leaf PE, identified by the Originating Router's IP
   address field, it MUST add that PE as Leaf of the P2MP tree by
   invoking the UpdateLeafSet API of the PCE.

   When a Leaf PE withdraws the last Leaf A-D route for a given SR P2MP
   P-Tunnel, the Root PE MUST remove the Leaf PE from the P2MP tree by
   invoking UpdateLeafSet API of PCE.  Note that Root PE MAY remove the
   P2MP tree, via the DeletePolicyAPI, before the last Leaf A-D is
   withdrawn.  In this case, the Root PE MAY decide to not invoke the
   UpdateLeafSet API.

5.  MVPN with Ingress Replication over Segment Routing

   A PE can provide MVPN service using Ingress Replication over Segment
   Routing.  Customer payload is encapsulated in SR-MPLS or IPv6 (SRv6)
   at Ingress PE.  The encapsulated payload is replicated and a unicast
   copy is sent to each egress PE.

   Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN [RFC7988] specifies
   procedures that can be used to provide MVPN service with Ingress
   Replication in a Segment Routing domain.  A PE advertises Intra-AS,
   Inter-AS, Selective PMSI BGP Auto-Discovery routes with PTA for
   Ingress Replication.  Egress PEs join asLeaf Nodes using Intrra-AS
   I-PMSI or Leaf Auto-Discovery routes.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   RFC 7988 procedures allow an ingress PE to deliver MVPN traffic to
   egress PEs using best-effort unicast connectivity.  For MVPN service
   with an underlay SLA from ingress PE to an egress PE, the egress PE
   colors the Leaf Auto-Discovery route with a Color Extended Community
   as specified in [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].  The
   ingress PE replicates MVPN customer payload to that egress PE by
   steering traffic into a SR-TE policy (Color, egress PE) according to
   section 8 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].

5.1.  SR-MPLS

   Procedures of RFC 7988 are sufficient to create a SR-MPLS Ingress
   Replication for MVPN service.

   If an egress PE colors the Leaf A-D route with Color Extended
   Community, the ingress PE encapsulates the payload packet into
   segment list of (Color, egress PE) SR-TE policy along with IR label
   received from the egress PE.  Suppose the egress PE, say PE2, sends
   Leaf A-D route with extended color community C1 and IR label L10.
   Assume the segment list of SR-TE policy (C1, PE2) at ingress PE1 is
   <L1, L2, L3>, PE1 will encapsulate MVPN customer payload into MPLS
   label stack <L1, L2, L3, L10> with L10 as BoS label.

5.2.  SRv6

   Procedures of RFC 7988, along with modifications described in this
   Section, are sufficient to create a SRv6 Ingress Replication for MVPN
   service.

   The PTA carried in Intra-AS, Inter-AS, Selective PMSI and Leaf Auto-
   Discovery routes is constructed as specified in RFC 7988 with
   modifications as below:

   *  Tunnel Type: "Ingress Replication" as per RFC 6514.

   *  MPLS Label: The high order 20 bits of this field carry the whole
      or a portion of the Function part of the SRv6 Multicast Service
      SID when ingress replication is used with the Transposition Scheme
      of encoding as defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services].  When
      using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length of SRv6
      SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV of SRv6 Prefix-SID attribute (see below)
      MUST be less than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to the
      Function Length.  When Transposition shceme is not used, the label
      field MUST be set to zero and Transposition Length MUST be zero.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   Section 6 and 7 of RFC 7988 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
   rfc7988#section-6) describe considerations and procedures for
   allocating MPLS labels for IR P-Tunnel.  For SRv6 Ingress
   Replication, these sections apply to SRv6 Multicast Service SID.

   To join a SRv6 Ingres Replication P-Tunnel advertised in PTA of Inra-
   AS, Inter-AS, or Selective S-PMSI A-D routes, an egress PE constructs
   a Leaf A-D or Intra-AS I-PMSI route as described in RFC 7988 with
   modified PTA above.  The egress PE attaches a BGP Prefix-SID
   attribute [RFC8669] in Leaf A-D or Intra-AS I-PMSI route with SRv6 L3
   Service TLV [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services] to signal SRv6 Multicast
   Service SID . The SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV carries the SRv6
   Multicast Service SID in SRv6 SID Value field.  The SRv6 Endpoint
   Behavior of the SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV encodes one of
   End.DTMC4, End.DTMC6 or End.DTMC46 codepoint value.  The SRv6 SID
   Structure Sub-Sub-TLV encodes the structure of SRv6 Multicast Service
   SID.  If Transposition scheme is used, the offset and length of SRv6
   Multicast Endpoint function of SRv6 Multicast Service SID is set in
   Transposition Length and Transposition Offset fields of this sub-sub
   TLV.  Otherwise, the Transposition Length and Offset fields MUST be
   set to zero.  The BGP Prefix SID attribute with SRv6 L3 Service TLV
   in Intra-AS I-PMSI or Leaf A-D route indicates to ingress PE that
   egress PE supports SRv6.

   The SRv6 Multicast Service SID SHOULD be routable within the AS of
   the egress PE.  As per RFC 7988, the Ingress PE uses the Tunnel
   Identifier of PTA to determine the unicast tunnel to use in order to
   send data to the egress PE.  This document requires the ingress PE to
   use the SRv6 Multicast Service SID to determine the unicast tunnel to
   be used.  For best-effort MVPN service or SLA based MVPN service
   using IGP Flexible Algorithm, the ingress PE MUST encapsulate payload
   in an outer IPv6 header with the SRv6 Multicast Service SID provided
   by the egress PE as the destination address.  If Transposition scheme
   is used, ingress PE MUST merge Function in MPLS Label field of PTA
   with SRv6 SID in SID Information TLV using the Transposition Offset
   and Length fields from SID structure sub-sub TLV to create SRv6
   Multicast Service SID

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   If an egress PE colors a Leaf A-D route with Color Extended
   Community, the ingress PE SHOULD encapsulate the payload packet into
   outer IPv6 header with segment list of (Color, egress PE) SR-TE
   policy along with SRv6 Multicast Service SID received with Leaf A-D
   route from the egress PE using SRH.  Suppose the egress PE, say PE2,
   sends Leaf A-D route with extended color community C1 and SRv6
   Multicast Service SID S10.  Assume the segment list of SR-TE policy
   (C1, PE2) at ingress PE1 is <S1, S2, S3>, PE1 will encapsulate MVPN
   customer payload into IPv6 header with SRH (PE1, S1) (S10, S3, S2;
   SL=3) (payload).  If SRv6 SID compression is used, the ingress PE
   SHOULD use CSID containers for the policy segments.

5.2.1.  SRv6 Multicast Endpoint Behaviors

   The following behaviors can be associated with SRv6 Multicast Service
   SID.

5.2.1.1.  End.DTMC4: Decapsulation and Specific IPv4 Multicast
          Table Lookup

   The "Endpoint with decapsulation and specific IPv4 Multicast table
   lookup" behavior ("End.DTMC4" for short) is similar to End.DT4
   behavior of RFC 8986 except the lookup is in IPv4 multicast table.

5.2.1.2.  End.DTMC6: Decapsulation and Specific IPv6 Multicast
          Table Lookup

   The "Endpoint with decapsulation and specific IPv6 Multicast table
   lookup" behavior ("End.DTMC6" for short) is similar to End.DT6
   behavior of RFC 8986 except the lookup is in IPv6 multicast table.

5.2.1.3.  End.DTMC46: Decapsulation and Specific IP Multicast
          Table Lookup

   The "Endpoint with decapsulation and specific IP Multicast table
   lookup" behavior ("End.DTMC46" for short) is similar to End.DT4 and
   End.DT6 behaviors of RFC 8986 except the lookup is in IP multicast
   table.

6.  Dampening of MVPN routes

   When P2MP trees are used as P-Tunnels for S-PMSI A-D routes, change
   in group membership of receivers connected to PEs has direct impact
   on the Leaf node set of a P2MP tree.  If group membership changes
   frequently for a large number of groups with a lot of receivers
   across sites connected to different PEs, it can have an impact on the
   interaction between PEs and the PCE.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   Since Leaf A-D routes are used to discover Leaf PE of a P2MP tree, it
   is RECOMMENDED that PEs SHOULD damp Leaf A-D routes as described in
   Section 6.1 of RFC 7899 [RFC7899].  PEs MAY also implement procedures
   for damping other Auto-Discovery and BGP C-multicast routes as
   described in [RFC7899].

7.  SR P2MP Trees for EVPN

   BGP MPLS Ethernet VPN specified in RFC 7432 specifies Inclusive
   Multicast Ethernet Tag route to support Broadcast, Unknown Unicast
   and Multicast (BUM) traffic.  This IMET route is the equivalent of
   MVPN Intra-AS I-PMSI route and is advertised with a PMSI Tunnel
   Attribute (PTA) as specified in RFC 6514 to advertise the inclusive
   P-Tunnels.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates] updates BUM procedures to
   support selective P-Tunnels and P-Tunnel segmentation in EVPN.  That
   document specifies new route types that are advertised with PTA,
   including Selective PMSI (S-PMSI) Auto-Discovery route.

   These inclusive/selective P-Tunnels can be realized by SR P2MP trees.
   As with other types of P2MP P-Tunnels, the ESI label used for split
   horizon MUST be either upstream assigned by PE advertising the IMET
   or S-PMSI route, or assigned from a global context such as "Domain-
   wide Common Block" (DCB) as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label].

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast] specifies procedures to support Inter-
   Subnet Multicast.  [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop]
   specifies how MVPN SAFI routes can be used to support Inter-Subnet
   Multicast.  The P-Tunnels advertised in PTA of either EVPN and MVPN
   routes as specified in these documents respectively can be realized
   by SR P2MP trees.

   SRv6 P2MP trees can serve as an underlay multicast as described in
   RFC 8293 Section 3.4 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8293#section-
   3.4).  A NVE encapsulates a tenant packet in an SRv6 header and
   deliver it over SRv6 P2MP trees to other NVEs.

   The same procedures specified for MVPN are used to collect the leaf
   information of corresponding SR P2MP tree (either based on IMET route
   or Leaf A-D routes in response to x-PMSI routes), to pass the tree
   information to the PCE controller, and to get back tree forwarding
   state used for customer multicast traffic forwarding.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the value 0x0C for "SR-MPLS P2MP Tree" in the
   "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types"
   registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-
   parameters.xhtml#pmsi-tunnel-types [RFC 7538] in the "Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.

   IANA is requested to assign codepoint for "SRv6 P2MP Tree" in the
   "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types"
   registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-
   parameters.xhtml#pmsi-tunnel-types [RFC 7538] in the "Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.  A proposed value is 0x0D.

   This document requests IANA to allocate the following codepoints in
   "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" sub-registry of "Segment Routing
   Parameters" top-level registry.

            +=======+========+===================+===========+
            | Value |  Hex   | Endpoint behavior | Reference |
            +=======+========+===================+===========+
            | 76    | 0x004C |     End.DTMC4     | [This.ID] |
            +-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+
            | 77    | 0x004D |     End.DTMC6     | [This.ID] |
            +-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+
            | 78    | 0x004E |     End.DTMC46    | [This.ID] |
            +-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+

                 Table 1: IETF - SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors

9.  Security Considerations

   The procedures in this document do not introduce any additional
   security considerations beyond those mentioned in [RFC6513] and
   [RFC6514].  For general security considerations applicable to P2MP
   trees, please refer to [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] .

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Luc Andre Burdett reviewing the
   document..

11.  Contributors

   Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc.  US

   Email: zali@cisco.com

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   Ehsan Hemmati Cisco Systems, Inc.  US

   Email: ehemmati@cisco.com

   Jayant Kotalwar Nokia Mountain View US

   Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com

   Tanmoy Kundu Nokia Mountain View US

   Email: tanmoy.kundu@nokia.com

   Clayton Hassen Bell CanadaVancouver CA

   Email: clayton.hassen@bell.ca

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-srv6-services]
              Dawra, G., Talaulikar, K., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B.,
              Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "SRv6 BGP based Overlay
              Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              bess-srv6-services-15, 22 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-
              services-15.txt>.

   [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", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-
              sr-p2mp-policy-04, 7 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-
              policy-04.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment]
              (editor), D. V., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H.,
              and Z. Zhang, "SR Replication Segment for Multi-point
              Service Delivery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-08, 1 July 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-sr-
              replication-segment-08.txt>.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   [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>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7988]  Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K., and Z. Zhang, "Ingress
              Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", RFC 7988,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7988, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7988>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

   [RFC8669]  Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
              A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
              Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.

   [RFC8754]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.

   [RFC8986]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
              D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
              (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates]
              Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
              Sajassi, "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

              procedure-updates-14, 18 November 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-
              procedure-updates-14.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast]
              Lin, W., Zhang, Z., Drake, J., Rosen, E. C., Rabadan, J.,
              and A. Sajassi, "EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast
              (OISM) Forwarding", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-07, 23 June 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-
              mcast-07.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop]
              Sajassi, A., Thiruvenkatasamy, K., Thoria, S., Gupta, A.,
              and L. Jalil, "Seamless Multicast Interoperability between
              EVPN and MVPN PEs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-04, 28 June
              2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-
              evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-04.txt>.

   [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", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-
              aggregation-label-08, 20 January 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-
              evpn-aggregation-label-08.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
              Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
              Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18, 16 June 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-segment-
              routing-te-policy-18.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
              routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
              segment-routing-policy-22.txt>.

   [RFC6625]  Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
              Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
              RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC7899]  Morin, T., Ed., Litkowski, S., Patel, K., Zhang, Z.,
              Kebler, R., and J. Haas, "Multicast VPN State Damping",
              RFC 7899, DOI 10.17487/RFC7899, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7899>.

   [RFC8293]  Ghanwani, A., Dunbar, L., McBride, M., Bannai, V., and R.
              Krishnan, "A Framework for Multicast in Network
              Virtualization over Layer 3", RFC 8293,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8293, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8293>.

Authors' Addresses

   Rishabh Parekh
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America
   Email: riparekh@cisco.com

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   Belgium
   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com

   Arvind Venkateswaran
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America
   Email: arvvenka@cisco.com

   Hooman Bidgoli
   Nokia
   Ottawa
   Canada
   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft    BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR        July 2022

   Daniel Voyer
   Bell Canada
   Montreal
   Canada
   Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   Email: zzhang@juniper.net

Parekh, et al.           Expires 3 January 2023                [Page 21]