Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing P2MP and Ingress Replication
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-18
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (bess WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rishabh Parekh (editor) , Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-27 (Latest revision 2026-01-21) | ||
| Replaces | draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
INTDIR Telechat review
(of
-16)
by Timothy Winters
Ready w/issues
GENART Early review
(of
-12)
by Paul Kyzivat
Ready w/issues
INTDIR Early review
(of
-09)
by Timothy Winters
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Stephane Litkowski | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2025-06-18 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Gunter Van de Velde | ||
| Send notices to | slitkows.ietf@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | EDIT | |
| Details |
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-18
Network Working Group R. Parekh, Ed.
Internet-Draft Arrcus
Updates: 6514, 7988 (if approved) D. Voyer, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: 25 July 2026 Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Bidgoli
Nokia
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks
21 January 2026
Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing P2MP and Ingress
Replication
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-18
Abstract
A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Tree in a Segment Routing domain carries
traffic from a Root to a set of Leaves. This document specifies
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 July 2026.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. SR P2MP P-tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. MVPN with SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. SRv6 Multicast Endpoint Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. End.DTMC4: Decapsulation and Specific IPv4 Multicast
Table Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. End.DTMC6: Decapsulation and Specific IPv6 Multicast
Table Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3. End.DTMC46: Decapsulation and Specific IP Multicast
Table Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. MVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP P-tunnel . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Auto-Discovery procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. MVPN with Ingress Replication over SR . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. EVPN with SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. EVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.1. PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP P-tunnel . . . . . 15
4.1.2. Split Horizon for ES Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.3. Auto-Discovery procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. EVPN with Ingress Replication over SR . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.1. SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Cisco Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Nokia Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
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 network operator 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 using different transport
mechanisms. For example, a service provider network that uses
Segment Routing (SR) can use a SR Point-to-Multipoint (SR P2MP) tree
defined by an SR P2MP Policy [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] or SR P2MP
Ingress Replication (IR) to instantiate P-tunnels for MVPN . This
documents refers to a P-tunnel realized by an SR P2MP Policy as SR
P2MP P-tunnel. SR P2MP P-tunnels can be instantiated both for SR-
MPLS [RFC8660] and SRv6 [RFC8986][RFC8754].
An SR P2MP tree is defined by an SR P2MP Policy
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and instantiated via a controller such
as a Path Computation Element (PCE). An SR P2MP Policy consists of a
Root, a set of Leaf Nodes and a set of candidate paths (CPs) with
optional set of constraints and/or optimization objectives to be
satisfied by the SR P2MP tree. A CP has zero or more P2MP tree
instances (PTI).
This document specifies extensions to BGP auto-discovery procedures
specified in [RFC6514] for P-tunnels constructed with a PTI. Use of
Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) for auto-discovery is outside
scope of this document. Support for customer Bidirectional PIM
(BIDIR-PIM) is outside the scope of this document.
This document extends procedures for MVPN service with IR over SR-
MPLS [RFC7988] data plane with an SLA. New procedures are defined
for MVPN service with IR over SRv6 data plane with or without an SLA.
This document defines new SRv6 endpoint behaviors [RFC8986] used for
MVPN with SR P2MP and IR P-tunnels.
For BGP MPLS Ethernet VPN specified in [RFC7432] and extensions
[RFC9572], P-tunnels are advertised for handling multi-destination
traffic. These P-tunnels can be instantiated by SR-MPLS or SRv6 P2MP
trees.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
The reader is expected to be familiar with [RFC6513], [RFC6514] for
MVPN procedures. For EVPN procedures should refer to[RFC7432].
Scalability, operational and troubleshooting considerations for SR
P2MP trees and Replication segments are described in
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and [RFC9524] respectively.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) ping and traceroute
procedures for SR P2MP Policy using SR-MPLS data plane are specified
in [I-D.ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping].
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are used as defined in [RFC8402].
* Segment Routing (SR)
* Segment Identifier (SID)
* SR domain
* SR-MPLS
* SRv6
* SRv6 SID
The following terms are used as defined in [RFC8754].
* Segment Routing Header (SRH)
The following terms are used as defined in [RFC9524].
* Replication segment
* Replication-SID
* Root, Leaf and Bud node
* Intermediate Replication node
The following terms are used as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].
* SR P2MP Policy
* Tree-ID
* Candidate Path (CP)
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
* P2MP Tree instance (PTI)
* Tree-SID
For MVPN, the following terms are used as defined in [RFC6513] and
[RFC6514].
* P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI)
* P-tunnel
* PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA)
* Auto-Discovery (A-D) routes
* Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D, Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D, S-PMSI A-D, and Leaf A-D
routes
For EVPN, the following terms are used as defined in [RFC7432],
[RFC9251] and [RFC9572].
* EVPN Instance (EVI)
* Ethernet Segment
* Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI)
* Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route
* Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) route
* Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and Multicast (BUM)
* S-PMSI and Leaf A-D route
2. SR P2MP P-tunnel
For MVPN or EVPN, Provider Edge(PE) routers can steer customer
traffic into a P-tunnel that can be instantiated by a SR-MPLS or SRv6
P2MP trees. An SR P2MP tree instance is by a Candidate path of an SR
P2MP Policy [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]. A P-tunnel is signalled
in MVPN or EVPN A-D routes using BGP PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA)
[RFC6514]. The PTA identifies the P-tunnel that is used to
instantiate a Provider Multicast Service Interface (PMSI).
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
+---------------------------------+
| INGRESS PE | +------------+
| +----------+ +----------+ | | |
| | | | SR P2MP | | PCEP/BGP/Etc | |
| | MVPN/EVPN+---->| Policy | +------------------>| CONTROLLER |
| | Module | | Module | | | |
| +----------+ +----------+ | | |
| | +------------+
+---------------------------------+
Figure 1: MVPN/EVPN interaction with SR P2MP Policy
Above diagram show the interaction between the conceptual MVPN or
EVPN module and SR P2MP Policy module on an ingress PE. The ingress
PE participates in MVPN or EVPN autodDiscovery procedures interacts
with SR P2MP Policy module as shown above diagram to create and
update SR P2MP Policy, Candidate path and the Leaf set of SR P2MP
policies. The SR P2MP Policy module interacts with a controller
using protocols such as PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy], BGP,
NetConf, etc,. which are outside the scope of this document.
An ingress PE creates a CP of an SR P2MP Policy in the SR P2MP Policy
module upon provisioning of the MVPN or EVPN module for SR P2MP
P-tunnel, or based on events or policy, such as mapping MVPN or EVPN
flow to a new SR P2MP P-tunnel. This CP can have optional traffic
engineering constraints and/or optimization objective by provisioning
or by a local policy. The SR P2MP Policy module signals the CP along
with the constraints and optimization objective to the controller
using a protocol mentioned above. The ingress PE deletes the CP of
the SR P2MP Policy from the SR P2MP Policy module when the SR P2MP
P-tunnel is not longer required. The SR P2MP Policy module signals
deletion of the CP of the SR P2MP Policy to the controller.
An ingress PE participates in MVPN or EVPN auto-discovery procedures
defined in this document to discover Leaf nodes of an SR P2MP
P-tunnel, via various A-D routes. The MVPN or EVPN module on the
ingress PE updates the Leaf set of the SR P2MP Policy corresponding
to the P-tunnel in the SR P2MP Policy module. The SR P2MP Policy
module signals the updated Leaf set to the controller using one of
the protocols mentioned above.
An egress PE associates an MVPN or EVPN A-D route with MVPN or EVPN
context and informs the SR P2MP Policy module to join the SR P2MP
P-tunnel as a Leaf or a Bud node.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
Given a Leaf set of an SR P2MP Policy and a CP with constraints and
optimization objective, the controller computes and instantiates the
PTI on the nodes that are part of the tree by stitching Replication
segments [RFC9524] at Root (ingress PE) node, intermediate
replication nodes and Leaf nodes (egress PEs). A Replication segment
of an PTI can be instantiated by various methods such as BGP, PCEP,
NetConf etc., which are outside the scope of this document. This PTI
of the SR P2MP Policy instantiates the P-tunnel advertised by the
MVPN or EVPN A-D routes.
The Tree-SID is the unique data plane identifier of the PTI. The
Root node encapsulates the payload in Tree-SID to steer it into the
the PTI. The Provider (P) routers replicate the encapsulated
payload, using Replication segments, towards the Leaf nodes of the
PTI. The Leaf nodes of the PTI dispose the Tree-SID and deliver the
payload. A Leaf node derives the MVPN or EVPN instance for
delivering the payload either from the Tree-SID or other context
encoded in the packet.
Note, an Ingress PE can deliver MVPN or EVPN payload to the egress
PEs using IR over SR-MPLS or SRv6. The SR P2MP Policy module and
controller do not participate in IR.
3. MVPN with SR
MVPN service can be provided using SR P2MP trees or IR over SR-MPLS
or SRv6 data plane.
3.1. SRv6 Multicast Endpoint Behaviors
The following SRv6 Endpoint behaviors can be associated with the SRv6
Multicast Service SID used for MVPN with SR P2MP and IR P-tunnels.
3.1.1. End.DTMC4: Decapsulation and Specific IPv4 Multicast
Table Lookup
The "Endpoint with Decapsulation and IPv4 Multicast Table Lookup
"behavior (abbreviated End.DTMC4) is functionally identical to the
End.DT4 behavior specified in [RFC8986], except that the forwarding
lookup MUST be performed in the IPv4 multicast routing table rather
than the unicast IPv4 routing table.
This behavior MUST only be associated with SRv6 Multicast Service SID
carried in AFI/SAFI 1/129 (MVPN-IPv4) A-D routes.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
3.1.2. End.DTMC6: Decapsulation and Specific IPv6 Multicast
Table Lookup
The "Endpoint with Decapsulation and IPv6 Multicast Table Lookup"
behavior (abbreviated End.DTMC6) is functionally identical to the
End.DT6 behavior specified in [RFC8986], except that the forwarding
lookup MUST be performed in the IPv6 multicast routing table rather
than the unicast IPv6 routing table.
This behavior MUST only be associated with SRv6 Multicast Service SID
carried in AFI/SAFI 2/129 (MVPN-IPv6) A-D routes.
3.1.3. End.DTMC46: Decapsulation and Specific IP Multicast Table Lookup
The "Endpoint with Decapsulation and IP Multicast Table Lookup"
behavior (abbreviated End.DTMC46) is functionally identical to the
End.DT4 and End.DT6 behaviors specified in [RFC8986], except that the
forwarding lookup MUST be performed in the IP multicast routing table
rather than in an IP unicast routing table.
This behavior MUST only be associated with SRv6 Multicast Service SID
carried in AFI/SAFI 1/129 (MVPN-IPv4) or 2/129 (MVPN-IPv6) A-D
routes.
3.2. MVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel
[RFC6514] 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 P-tunnels. The Intra-AS I-PMSI, Inter-AS I-PMSI, and
S-PMSI A-D routes have the PTA that specifies the SR P2MP tree
P-tunnel . In this section, the term "SR P2MP" refers to both SR-MPLS
and SRv6 data planes.
3.2.1. PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP P-tunnel
A PTA for an SR P2MP P-tunnel is constructed as specified below.
* Tunnel Type: One of below SR P2MP P-tunnel types from the
"P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types"
registry additions defined in this document
- 0x0C for SR-MPLS P2MP Tree
- TBD for SRv6 P2MP Tree
* Flags: See Section 3.2.2 for use of "Leaf Info Required bit".
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
* MPLS Label: See Section 4.1.1.1
* Tunnel Identifier: The SR P2MP P-tunnel identifies an SR P2MP
Policy with the identifier <Tree-ID, Root>
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] in the order below,
- Tree-ID: A 32-bit unsigned value that uniquely identifies an SR
P2MP Policy at the Root.
- Root: An IP address identifying the Root of the SR P2MP Policy.
This can be either an IPv4 or IPv6 address. The address type
can be inferred from the PTA length.
An PTA with SR P2MP P-tunnel is provisioned with Tunnel Type for SR-
MPLS or SRv6 P2MP trees. An implementation SHOULD advertise PTA with
SR P2MP P-tunnel only when the underlying SR-MPLS or SRv6 data plane
is supported. The procedures for provisioning and determination of
data plane support for SR-MPLS or SRv6 are outside scope of this
document.
A P-tunnel can be segmented or non-segmented (see Section 8 of
[RFC6513]). When a P-tunnel is non-segmented, the PTA is created by
PE router at the Root of an SR P2MP tree. For segmented P-tunnels,
each segment can be instantiated by a different P-tunnel type. If a
segment is instantiated using P2MP tree, the router at the root of an
SR P2MP tree creates the PTA.
3.2.1.1. MPLS Label
When a SR P2MP P-tunnel is not shared across MVPNs i.e. there is one-
to-one association between an MVPN instance and a SR P2MP P-tunnel,
the "MPLS Label" field is set to zero as per [RFC6514] both for SR-
MPLS and SRv6. In this case, the SR-MPLS or SRv6 Tree-SID of the PTI
of the SR P2MP Policy advertised in the P-tunnel is sufficient to
identify the MVPN instance for delivering the payload.
[RFC6514] allows a PE to aggregate two or more MVPNs onto one SR P2MP
P-tunnel by advertising the same P-tunnel in PTA of A-D routes of
different MVPNs. In this case, the "MPLS Label" field of PTA is
filled to provide a context bound to a specific MVPN instance as
described in below sections. The value in this field is used by
egress PEs to identify the MVPN instance for delivering the payload
encapsulated in SR-MPLS or SRv6.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
3.2.1.1.1. SR-MPLS
When an SR P2MP P-tunnel is shared across two or more MVPNs in a SR-
MPLS domain, the "MPLS Label" field of a PTA advertised in an A-D
route MUST contain an upstream-assigned MPLS label [RFC5331]
[RFC6513] or a label assigned from a global context such as "Domain-
wide Common Block" (DCB) as specified in [RFC9573] that the
advertising PE has bound to the MVPN,.
When an ingress PE steers the payload into a shared SR P2MP P-tunnel
PTI, this MPLS label MUST be imposed before the MPLS label
representing the Tree-SID. The trade-off of sharing an SR P2MP
P-tunnel across MVPNs is two MPLS labels have to be imposed on
ingress and disposed on egress.
The egress PEs of a shared SR P2MP P-tunnel use the MPLS label to
determine the MVPN instance for delivering the payload.
3.2.1.1.2. SRv6
When an 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
A-D route MUST contain an upstream-assigned SRv6 Multicast Service
SID ( Section 3.1) 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 as
specified in [RFC9573]. The high order 20 bits of "MPLS Label" 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 [RFC9252] 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 scheme
is not used, the label field MUST be set to zero as per [RFC6514] and
Transposition Length MUST be zero.
The advertising ingress PE MUST attach 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 [RFC9252] 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 code point 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
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
set to zero. The LOC of an SRv6 Multicast Service SID which is
assigned from a global context, such as DCB, is outside the scope of
this document.
The advertising ingress PE, which is the Root node of the shared SR
P2MP P-tunnel, MUST encapsulate a payload in an outer IPv6 header
with a 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 the 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.
An egress PE of the shared SR P2MP P-tunnel use the SRv6 Multicast
Service SID in SRH to determine the MVPN instance in which the
customer payload is to be delivered. The 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" [RFC9524] behavior to
process the SRv6 Multicast Service SID. An egress PE MUST NOT
install the SRv6 Multicast Service SID in its Forwarding Information
Base (FIB) i.e. it MUST NOT forward packets based on the Locator
portion of the SRv6 Multicast Service SID because the SID is not
significant on the ingress PE.
3.2.2. Auto-Discovery procedures
MVPN auto-discovery procedures specified in [RFC6514] are used to
advertise an SR P2MP P-tunnel and discover the leaf nodes of the SR
P2MP Policy associated with the P-tunnel. This section describes the
processing of MVPN A-D routes to create, update and tear down an SR
P2MP Policy of a SR P2MP P-tunnel as described in Section 2.
3.2.2.1. Creation of CP of SR P2MP Policy
A PE interacts with SR P2MP Policy module to create a CP, with
optional traffic engineering constrains and optimization objective,
of an SR P2MP Policy when it it originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
route [RFC6514], or an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route for intra-AS segment
[RFC6514], or a S-PMSI A-D route [RFC6514], or "wildcard" S-PMSI A-D
route [RFC6625], with a PTA having SR P2MP P-tunnel type.
The CP of the SR P2MP Policy associated with a SR P2MP P-tunnel is
deleted from the SR P2MP Policy module when a PE withdraws the Intra-
AS I-PMSI, Inter-AS I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D route advertising that
P-tunnel.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
When a PE originates an Inter-AS I-PMSI or a S-PMSI A-D route with a
PTA having SR P2MP P-tunnel type, it MUST set the "Leaf Information
Required" flag in the PTA.
3.2.2.2. Discovery of Leaf nodes
An ingress PE that advertises an MVPN A-D route with PTA having SR
P2MP P-tunnel type discovers a Leaf node of the SR P2MP Policy
associated with the SR P2MP P-tunnel when it imports an Intra-AS
I-PMSI A-D route [RFC6514], or Leaf A-D route [RFC6514] from an
egress PE. The ingress PE adds the egress PE as a Leaf node in the
SR P2MP Policy module.
An ingress PE removes an egress PE from the Leaf set of the SR P2MP
Policy when the egress PE withdraws the Intra-AS I-PMSI or the Leaf
A-D route.
An egress PE informs the SR P2MP Policy module to join the SR P2MP
Policy as a Leaf or Bud node when it imports an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
route, an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route, or a S-PMSI A-D route from an
ingress PE having a PTA with SR P2MP P-tunnel type. The egress PE
MUST originate a Leaf A-D route if the "Leaf Information Required"
flag is set in the PTA.
An egress PE withdraws itself as a Leaf or Bud node of the SR P2MP
Policy when the ingress PE withdraws a Intra-AS I-PMSI, Inter-AS
I-PMSI, or a S-PMSI A-D route. The egress PE MUST withdraw the Leaf
A-D it had originated earlier in response to the "Leaf Information
Required" flag in the PTA.
3.3. MVPN with Ingress Replication over SR
A PE can provide MVPN service using IR over SR. The payload is
encapsulated in SR-MPLS or SRv6 at an Ingress PE and replicated with
each copy sent to an egress PE via unicast.
Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN [RFC7988] specifies
procedures that can be re-used to provide MVPN service with IR in an
SR domain. A PE advertises Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D, Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D,
or Selective PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D routes with PTA for IR. Egress
PEs join as Leaf nodes using Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D or Leaf A-D routes.
The procedures of [RFC7988] provide an MVPN IR service with best-
effort unicast connectivity.
This document adds procedures for providing an MVPN IR service with a
SLA from an ingress PE to an egress PE both for SR-MPLS and SRv6.
This document extends BGP Update message of AFI/SAFI 1/129 (MVPN-
IPv4) and 2/129 (MVPN-IPv6) to carry the Color Extended Community as
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
specified in [RFC9012] and Color-Only Type extension specified in
Section 3 of [RFC9830]. An egress PE colors the Leaf or Intra-AS
I-PMSI A-D route with a Color Extended Community. The ingress PE
replicates MVPN customer payload to the egress PE by steering it into
a SR-TE policy according to section 8 of [RFC9256]. The ingress PE
encapsulates the payload packet into segment list of the matching SR-
TE policy to the egress PE along with IR MPLS label or SRv6 Multicast
Service SID received from the egress PE.
Note, the Color Extended Community is not used with MVPN SR P2MP
P-tunnel. For MVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel, the ingress PE dictates
the traffic engineering treatment by specifying the constraints and
the metric optimization in the CP of the SR P2MP policy corresponding
to the P-tunnel on the ingress PE . This is necessary because packets
are replicated in the PTI and therefore it is not possible to have
differing traffic engineering treatment towards each egress PE (Leaf
node) of the PTI.
3.3.1. SR-MPLS
The PTA carried in Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D, Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D, S-PMSI
A-D and Leaf A-D routes is constructed as specified in [RFC7988].
MVPN IR service with SLA over SR-MPLS data plane can be provided by
using the Color Extended Community as described above. Suppose an
egress PE, say PE2, sends Leaf A-D route with Extended Color
Community C1 with Color-Only Type 0 and IR label L10 to the ingress
PE PE1. Assume the segment list of SR-TE policy (C1, PE2) at ingress
PE1 is <L1, L2, L3>, PE1 will encapsulate MVPN payload into MPLS
label stack <L1, L2, L3, L10> with L10 as BoS label.
3.3.2. SRv6
The procedures specified in [RFC7988], with the modifications defined
in this section, are used to provide MVPN IR service over SRv6.
The PTA carried in Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D, Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D,
Selective PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D routes is constructed as specified in
[RFC7988] with modifications as below:
* Tunnel Type: "Ingress Replication" as per [RFC6514].
* 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 the Transposition Scheme is used for encoding as defined
in [RFC9252]. 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
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
and less than or equal to the Function Length. When Transposition
scheme is not used, the label field MUST be set to zero and
Transposition Length MUST be zero.
Sections 6 and 7 of [RFC7988] describe considerations and procedures
for allocating MPLS labels for IR P-tunnel. These considerations
also apply to allocation of SRv6 Multicast Service SID for SRv6 IR.
To join a SRv6 IR P-tunnel advertised in PTA of Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D,
Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D, or Selective S-PMSI A-D routes, an egress PE
constructs a Leaf A-D or Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route as described in
[RFC7988] with modified PTA above. The egress PE MUST attach a BGP
Prefix-SID attribute [RFC8669] with a Leaf A-D or Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D
route with SRv6 L3 Service TLV [RFC9252] to signal SRv6 Multicast
Service SID (Section 3.1). 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 MUST encode one
of End.DTMC4, End.DTMC6 or End.DTMC46 code point 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 MUST be routable within the AS of the
egress PE. As per [RFC7988], 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. For SRv6 IR, the ingress PE MUST use the
SRv6 Multicast Service SID to determine the unicast tunnel to be
used. For best-effort MVPN IR service or SLA-based MVPN IR service
using IGP Flexible Algorithm, the ingress PE MUST encapsulate the
payload in an outer IPv6 header, with the SRv6 Multicast Service SID
provided by the egress PE used 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.
MVPN IR service with SLA over SRv6 can be provided by using the Color
Extended Community as described above. Suppose an egress PE, say
PE2, sends Leaf A-D route with Extended color community C1 with
Color-Only Type 0 and SRv6 Multicast Service SID S10 to the ingress
PE PE1. Assume the segment list of the SR-TE policy (C1, PE2) at
ingress PE1 is <S1, S2, S3>, PE1 will encapsulate a payload into an
IPv6 header with SRH (PE1, S1) (S10, S3, S2; SL=3) (payload).
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
4. EVPN with SR
BGP MPLS Ethernet VPN specified in [RFC7432] specifies IMET route to
support 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 [RFC6514] to advertise the inclusive P-tunnels.
[RFC9252] specifies procedures for IMET routes with IR over SRv6.
[RFC9572] updates the EVPN BUM procedures to support selective
P-tunnels. It defines new BGP route types which are advertised with
a PTA, including the S-PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D route. The S-PMSI and
Leaf A-D routes of [RFC9572] are analogous to MVPN S-PMSI and Leaf
A-D routes [RFC6514]. Note, support of Inter-AS and Inter-Regsion
segmentation procedures in [RFC9572] with SR P2MP P-tunnels are out
of scope of this document.
Inclusive and Selective P-tunnels can be instantiated using SR P2MP
trees or IR over SR.
4.1. EVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel
This section specifies modifications to procedures of [RFC7432] and
[RFC9572] for SR P2MP P-tunnels. The IMET, S-PMSI, and Leaf A-D
routes have the PTA that specifies the SR P2MP tree P-tunnel . In
this section, the term "SR P2MP" refers to both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data
planes.
4.1.1. PMSI Tunnel Attribute for SR P2MP P-tunnel
A PTA for an SR P2MP P-tunnel is constructed as specified in
Section 3.2.1 except the MPLS Label and Flags fields are filled as
specified in Section 4.1.1.1 and Section 4.1.3 respectively.
4.1.1.1. MPLS Label
4.1.1.1.1. SR-MPLS
When a SR P2MP P-tunnel is not shared across MVPNs i.e. there is one-
to-one association between a EVI and a SR P2MP P-tunnel, the "MPLS
Label" field is set to zero as per [RFC6514]. In this case, the SR-
MPLS Tree-SID of the PTI of the SR P2MP Policy advertised in the
P-tunnel is sufficient to identify the MVPN instance for delivering
the payload.
[RFC7432] and [RFC9572] allows a PE to aggregate two or more EVIss
onto one SR P2MP P-tunnel by advertising the same P-tunnel in PTA of
A-D routes of different EVIs. When an SR P2MP P-tunnel is shared
across two or more EVIs in a SR-MPLS domain, the "MPLS Label" field
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
of a PTA advertised in an EVPN A-D route MUST contain an upstream-
assigned MPLS label [RFC5331] [RFC6513] or a label assigned from a
global context such as "Domain-wide Common Block" (DCB) as specified
in [RFC9573] that the advertising PE has bound to the EVI. The
egress PE uses this label as context to identify the specific EVI for
delivering the EVPN payload encapsulated in SR-MPLS. When an ingress
PE steers the payload into a shared SR P2MP P-tunnel PTI, this MPLS
label MUST be imposed before the MPLS label representing the Tree-
SID.
4.1.1.1.2. SRv6
For SRv6 P2MP, an EVI is identified by a SRv6 SID encoded in the SRH
of an IPv6 encapsulated packet from the ingress PE as described later
in this section. This is required even if SR P2MP P-tunnel is not
shared across EVIs.
The advertising ingress PE MUST attach a BGP Prefix-SID attribute
[RFC8669] to IMET [RFC9252] or S-PMSI [RFC9572] A-D routes with SRv6
L2 Service TLV [RFC9252]. The SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV carries
the SID in SRv6 SID Value field. The SRv6 Endpoint Behavior of the
SRv6 SID Information Sub-TLV SHOULD be END.DT2M [RFC8986] as per
Section 6.3 of [RFC9252]. The SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV encodes
the structure of SID. If Transposition scheme is used, the offset
and length of the 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 LOC
of an SID which is assigned from a global context, such as DCB, is
outside the scope of this document.
The "MPLS Label" field of a PTA advertised in an A-D route MUST
contain an upstream-assigned SRv6 SID that the advertising PE has
bound to the EVI, or a SRv6 SID assigned from a global context; this
follows same concept of "Domain-wide Common Block" (DCB) label as
specified in [RFC9573]. The high order 20 bits of "MPLS Label" field
carry the whole or a portion of the Function part of the SRv6 SID
when Transposition Scheme of encoding as defined in [RFC9252] is
used. When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length
of SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV of SRv6 Prefix-SID attribute MUST
be less than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to the Function
Length. When Transposition scheme is not used, the label field MUST
be set to zero as per [RFC6514] and Transposition Length MUST be
zero.
The advertising ingress PE, which is the Root node of the SR P2MP
P-tunnel MUST encapsulate a payload in an outer IPv6 header with a
SRH in which the SRv6 SID (advertised in the BGP Prefix-SID
attribute) MUST be the last segment in the segment list (note the
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
SRv6 SID may be the only segment in the 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 the
SRv6 SID. When ESI-based split horizon filtering is used, the
Arg.FE2 (see Section 4.1.2.2) SHOULD be merged with the SRv6 SID by
doing a bitwise logical OR operation to create the complete SRv6 SID
encoded in the SRH on the ingress PE.
An egress PE of the SR P2MP P-tunnel use the SRv6 SID in SRH to
determine the EVI in which the customer payload is to be delivered.
The egress PE, in role of Leaf or Bud Node of Replication segment
associated with SR P2MP P-tunnel tree, uses "look at next SID in SRH"
[RFC9524] behavior to process the SRv6 SID. An egress PE MUST NOT
install the SRv6 SID in its Forwarding Information Base (FIB) i.e. it
MUST NOT forward packets based on the Locator portion of the SRv6
SID. The Arg.FE2 of the SID, if present, is used for ESI-based split
horizon filtering as specified in Section 4.1.2.2.
4.1.2. Split Horizon for ES Multihoming
EVPN requires split-horizon filtering with ES multihoming in order to
prevent duplicate BUM traffic as described in Section 8,3 of
[RFC7432]. This section describes Split-horizon filtering procedures
with SR P2MP P-tunnel.
4.1.2.1. SR-MPLS filtering
The split-horizon procedures specified for P2MP MPLS LSPs in
Section 8.3.1.2 of [RFC7432] are sufficient for SR P2MP P-tunnels.
Note for shared SR P2MP P-tunnels, the ESI label is at the bottom of
the label stack, followed by EVI context label and finally the Tree-
SID label of the PTI associated with P-tunnel at the top in SR-MPLS
encapsulation.
4.1.2.2. SRv6 filtering
For SRv6, "Arg.FE2" Argument of End.DT2M SRv6 Endpoint behavior
[RFC8986] is used for ESI-based split-horizon filtering. For SR P2MP
P-tunnel, the Arg.FE2 SID Argument is an upstream-assigned value
assigned by an ingress PE and identifies and ES of origin. This SID
Argument is analogous to the upstream-assigned ESI MPLS label
specified in Section 8.3 of [RFC7432]. The Arg.FE2 is signalled in
ESI Label field of the ESI Label extended community [RFC7432] and a
BGP Prefix-SID attribute with an Ethernet A-D per ES route as
specified in Section 6.1.1 of [RFC9252] and expanded further in
[RFC9819].
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
The advertised Arg.FE2 is encoded with SRv6 SID in SRH by the ingress
PE as described above in Section 4.1.1.1.2. The egress PE uses the
Arg.FE2 of the SRv6 SID, if present, to perform ESI-based split
horizon filtering as specified in End.DT2M forwarding behavior in
Section 4.12 of [RFC8986].
4.1.3. Auto-Discovery procedures
EVPN auto-discovery procedures specified in [RFC7432] and [RFC9572]
are used to advertise an SR P2MP P-tunnel and discover the leaf nodes
of the SR P2MP Policy associated with the P-tunnel. This section
describes the processing of EVPN A-D routes to create, update and
tear down an SR P2MP Policy of a SR P2MP P-tunnel as described in
Section 2.
4.1.3.1. Creation of CP of SR P2MP Policy
A PE interacts with SR P2MP Policy module to create a CP, with
optional traffic engineering constrains and optimization objective,
of an SR P2MP Policy when it it originates an IMET A-D route
[RFC7432], or a S-PMSI A-D route [RFC9572], with a PTA having SR P2MP
P-tunnel type.
The CP of the SR P2MP Policy associated with a SR P2MP P-tunnel is
deleted from the SR P2MP Policy module when a PE withdraws the IMET
or S-PMSI A-D route advertising that P-tunnel.
When a PE originates a S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having SR P2MP
P-tunnel type, it MUST set the "Leaf Information Required" flag in
the PTA.
4.1.3.2. Discovery of Leaf nodes
An ingress PE that advertises an EVPN A-D route with PTA having SR
P2MP P-tunnel type discovers a Leaf node of the SR P2MP Policy
associated with the SR P2MP P-tunnel when it imports an IMET A-D
route [RFC7432], or Leaf A-D route [RFC9572] from an egress PE. The
ingress PE adds the egress PE as a Leaf node in the SR P2MP Policy
module.
An ingress PE removes an egress PE from the Leaf set of the SR P2MP
Policy when the egress PE withdraws the IMET A-D or the Leaf A-D
route.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
An egress PE informs the SR P2MP Policy module to join the SR P2MP
Policy as a Leaf or Bud node when it imports an IMET A-D route or a
S-PMSI A-D route from an ingress PE having a PTA with SR P2MP
P-tunnel type. The egress PE MUST originate a Leaf A-D route if the
"Leaf Information Required" flag is set in the PTA.
An egress PE withdraws itself as a Leaf or Bud node of the SR P2MP
Policy when the ingress PE withdraws a IMET or a S-PMSI A-D route.
The egress PE MUST withdraw the Leaf A-D it had originated earlier in
response to the "Leaf Information Required" flag in the PTA.
4.2. EVPN with Ingress Replication over SR
A PE can provide EVPN service using IR over SR. The EVPN payload is
encapsulated in SR-MPLS or SRv6 at an Ingress PE and replicated with
each copy sent to an egress PE via unicast. IR procedures for MPLS
are specified for IMET A-D route in [RFC7432] and SMET A-D route in
[RFC9251]. Procedures for EVPN IR over SRv6 for IMET A-D route are
specified in [RFC9252]. These procedures provide an EVPN IR service
with best-effort unicast connectivity.
This document adds procedures for providing an EVPN IR service with a
SLA from an ingress PE to an egress PE both for SR-MPLS and SRv6.
This document extends BGP Update message of AFI/SAFI 25/70 (L2VPN-
EVPN) to carry the Color Extended Community as specified in [RFC9012]
and Color-Only Type extension specified in Section 3 of [RFC9830].
An egress PE colors the IMET with a Color Extended Community. The
ingress PE replicates EVPN customer payload to the egress PE by
steering it into a SR-TE policy according to section 8 of [RFC9256].
The ingress PE encapsulates the payload packet into segment list of
the matching SR-TE policy to the egress PE along with IR MPLS label
or SRv6 End.DT2M SID received from the egress PE.
Note, the Color Extended Community is not used with EVPN SR P2MP
P-tunnel. For EVPN with SR P2MP P-tunnel, the ingress PE dictates
the traffic engineering treatment by specifying the constraints and
the metric optimization in the CP of the SR P2MP policy corresponding
to the P-tunnel on the ingress PE . This is necessary because packets
are replicated in the PTI and therefore it is not possible to have
differing traffic engineering treatment towards each egress PE (Leaf
node) of the PTI.
4.2.1. SR-MPLS
EVPN IR procedures for MPLS specified in [RFC7432] and [RFC9251] can
be extended for EVPN IR over SR-MPLS.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
EVPN IR service with SLA over SR-MPLS data plane can be provided by
using the Color Extended Community as described above. Suppose an
egress PE, say PE2, sends IMET A-D route with Extended Color
Community C1 with Color-Only Type 0 and EVPN BUM label L10 to the
ingress PE PE1. Assume the segment list of SR-TE policy (C1, PE2) at
ingress PE1 is <L1, L2, L3>, PE1 will encapsulate MVPN payload into
MPLS label stack <L1, L2, L3, L10> with L10 as BoS label. Note, the
MPLS label stack may have ESI label at the bottom of label stack if
ESI-based split-horizon is used.
4.2.2. SRv6
EVPN IR procedures for SRv6 are specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC9252]
for IMET A-D route.
A PE can provide EVPN IR service with SLA over SRv6 using the Color
Extended Community as described above. Suppose an egress PE, say
PE2, sends IMET A-D route with Extended color community C1 with
Color-Only Type 0 and SRv6 End.DT2M SID S10 to the ingress PE PE1.
Assume the segment list of the SR-TE policy (C1, PE2) at ingress PE1
is <S1, S2, S3>, PE1 will encapsulate a payload into an IPv6 header
with SRH (PE1, S1) (S10, S3, S2; SL=3) (payload). Note, the End.DT2M
SID S10 may also have an Arg.FEs Argument if ESI-based split-horizon
filter is used.
5. Implementation Status
Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
publication. This section records the status of known
implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the
time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal
described in RFC7942 . The description of implementations in this
section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in
progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any
individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the
IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog
of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised
to note that other implementations may exist. According to RFC7942,
"this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due
consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code,
which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback
that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to
the individual working groups to use this information as they see
fit".
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
5.1. Cisco Implementation
Cisco has implemented MVPN procedures defined in this draft to
provide MVPN service with SR P2MP policies in a segment routing
domain. The implementation supports SR-MPLS encapsulation and has
all the MUST and SHOULD clause in this draft. The implementation is
at general availability maturity and is compliant with the latest
version of the draft. The documentation for implementation can be
found at Cisco website and the point of contact is
abudhira@cisco.com.
5.2. Nokia Implementation
Nokia has implemented MVPN procedures specified in this draft to
provide MVPN service with SR P2MP policies in a segment routing
domain. The implementation supports SR-MPLS encapsulation and has
all the MUST and SHOULD clause in this draft. The implementation is
at general availability maturity and is compliant with the latest
version of the draft. The documentation for implementation can be
found at Nokia help and the point of contact is
hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com.
6. 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 [RFC7385] in the "Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.
IANA is requested to assign code point 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 [RFC7385] in the "Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.
This document requests IANA to allocate the following code points in
"SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" sub-registry
https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-
routing.xhtml#srv6-endpoint-behaviors [RFC8986] of "Segment Routing
Parameters" top-level registry.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
+=======+========+===================+===========+============+
| Value | Hex | Endpoint behavior | Reference | Change |
| | | | | Controller |
+=======+========+===================+===========+============+
| 76 | 0x004C | End.DTMC4 | [This.ID] | [Change to |
| | | | | IETF] |
+-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+------------+
| 77 | 0x004D | End.DTMC6 | [This.ID] | [Change to |
| | | | | IETF] |
+-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+------------+
| 78 | 0x004E | End.DTMC46 | [This.ID] | [Change to |
| | | | | IETF] |
+-------+--------+-------------------+-----------+------------+
Table 1: Multicast Service SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
7. Security Considerations
The procedures in this document do not introduce any additional
security considerations beyond those mentioned in [RFC6513],
[RFC6514], [RFC7432] and [RFC9572]. For general security
considerations applicable to SR P2MP Policy and Replication segments,
please refer to [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and [RFC9524]
respectively.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Luc Andre Burdet reviewing the
document..
9. Contributors
Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. US
Email: zali@cisco.com
Arvind Venkateswaran Cisco Systems, Inc. US
Email: arvvenka@cisco.com
Jayant Kotalwar Nokia Mountain View US
Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com
Tanmoy Kundu Nokia Mountain View US
Email: tanmoy.kundu@nokia.com
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
Clayton Hassen Bell CanadaVancouver CA
Email: clayton.hassen@bell.ca
Mankamana Mishra Cisco Systems, Inc. US
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
Parekh, R., Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
J. Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-
policy-22, 4 September 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-sr-
p2mp-policy-22>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7385] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "IANA Registry for
P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code
Points", RFC 7385, DOI 10.17487/RFC7385, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7385>.
[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>.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
[RFC9524] Voyer, D., Ed., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and
Z. Zhang, "Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint
Service Delivery", RFC 9524, DOI 10.17487/RFC9524,
February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9524>.
[RFC9572] Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
Sajassi, "Updates to EVPN Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or
Multicast (BUM) Procedures", RFC 9572,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9572, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9572>.
[RFC9819] Talaulikar, K., Raza, K., Rabadan, J., and W. Lin,
"Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing
over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9819, DOI 10.17487/RFC9819, July
2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9819>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy]
Bidgoli, H., Voyer, D., Budhiraja, A., Parekh, R., and S.
Sivabalan, "PCEP extensions for SR P2MP Policy", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-
13, 19 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-
p2mp-policy-13>.
[I-D.ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping]
Bidgoli, H., Ali, Z., Zhang, Z. J., Budhiraja, A., and D.
Voyer, "Segment Routing MPLS Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
Policy Ping", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-25, 9 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pim-
p2mp-policy-ping-25>.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.
[RFC9251] Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Mishra, M., Patel, K., Drake, J.,
and W. Lin, "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Proxies for Ethernet
VPN (EVPN)", RFC 9251, DOI 10.17487/RFC9251, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9251>.
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BGP MVPN and EVPN with SR P2MP and IR January 2026
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9573] Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and IJ. Wijnands,
"MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels",
RFC 9573, DOI 10.17487/RFC9573, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9573>.
[RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>.
Authors' Addresses
Rishabh Parekh (editor)
Arrcus
United States of America
Email: rishabh@arrcus.com
Daniel Voyer (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Montreal
Canada
Email: davoyer@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Hooman Bidgoli
Nokia
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Parekh, Ed., et al. Expires 25 July 2026 [Page 26]