Multicast VPN Using BIER
draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bier WG)
Last updated 2016-06-20
Replaces draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bier
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Mar 2018 - Published as propose... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                            E. Rosen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Sivakumar
Expires: December 22, 2016                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               S. Aldrin
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                             A. Dolganow
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                           T. Przygienda
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           June 20, 2016

                        Multicast VPN Using BIER
                        draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-03

Abstract

   The Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) specifications require
   the use of multicast tunnels ("P-tunnels") that traverse a Service
   Provider's backbone network.  The P-tunnels are used for carrying
   multicast traffic across the backbone.  A variety of P-tunnel types
   are supported.  Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new
   architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a
   "multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to
   maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building
   protocol.  This document specifies the protocol and procedures that
   allow MVPN to use BIER as the method of carrying multicast traffic
   over an SP backbone network.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2016.

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Using the LIR Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Using the LIR-pF Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Data Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Encapsulation and Transmission  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.1.  At a BFER that is an Egress PE  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.2.  At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Boundary  .   9
   5.  Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] specify the protocols and procedures that a
   Service Provider (SP) can use to provide Multicast Virtual Private
   Network (MVPN) service to its customers.  Multicast tunnels are
   created through an SP's backbone network; these are known as
   "P-tunnels".  The P-tunnels are used for carrying multicast traffic
   across the backbone.  The MVPN specifications allow the use of
   several different kinds of P-tunnel technology.

   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) ([BIER_ARCH]) is an
   architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   "multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to
   maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building
   protocol.  The purpose of the current document is to specify the
   protocols and procedures needed in order to provide MVPN service
   using BIER to transport the multicast traffic over the backbone.

   Although BIER does not explicitly build and maintain multicast
   tunnels, one can think of BIER as using a number of implicitly
   created tunnels through a "BIER domain".  In particular, one can
   think of there as being one Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tunnel from
   each "Bit Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR) to all the "Bit
   Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs) in the BIER domain, where a BIER
   domain is generally co-extensive with an IGP network.  These
   "tunnels" are not specific to any particular VPN.  However, the MVPN
   architecture provides protocols and procedures that allow the traffic
   of multiple MVPNs to be aggregated on a single P-tunnel.  In this
   document, we specify how to use these multi-VPN aggregation
   procedures to enable BIER to transport traffic from multiple MVPNs.

   MVPN traffic must sometimes traverse more than one IGP domain,
   whereas BIER only carries multicast traffic within a single IGP
   domain.  However, the MVPN specifications allow P-tunnels to be
   "segmented", where the segmentation points may either be Autonomous
   System Border Routers (ASBRs), as described in [RFC6514], or Area
   Border Routers (ABRs), as described in [RFC7524].  As long as the
   segmentation points are capable of acting as BFIRs and BFERs, BIER
   can be used to provide some or all of the segments of a P-tunnel.

   This revision of the document does not specify the procedures
   necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM.  Those
   procedures will be added in a future revision.

   This document uses the following terminology from [BIER_ARCH]:

   o  BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.

   o  BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.

   o  BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.

   This document uses the following terminology from [RFC6513]:

   o  MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Network -- a VPN [RFC4364] in
      which multicast service is offered.

   o  P-tunnel.  A multicast tunnel through the network of one or more
      SPs.  P-tunnels are used to transport MVPN multicast data

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   o  C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
      located at a VPN customer site.

   o  C-G: A multicast group address used by a VPN customer.

   o  C-flow: A customer multicast flow.  Each C-flow is identified by
      the ordered pair (source address, group address), where each
      address is in the customer's address space.  The identifier of a
      particular C-flow is usually written as (C-S,C-G).
      Sets of C-flows can be identified by the use of the "C-*" wildcard
      (see [RFC6625]), e.g., (C-*,C-G).

   o  I-PMSI A-D Route: Inclusive Provider Multicast Service Interface
      Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these
      routes are used to advertise the "default" P-tunnel for a
      particular MVPN.

   o  S-PMSI A-D route: Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface
      Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these
      routes are used to advertise the fact that particular C-flows are
      bound to (i.e., are traveling through) particular P-tunnels.

   o  PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA).  This BGP attribute carried is used
      to identify a particular P-tunnel.  When C-flows of multiple VPNs
      is carried in a single P-tunnel, this attribute also carries the
      information needed to multiplex and demultiplex the C-flows.

   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].

2.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute

   As defined in [RFC6514], the PMSI Tunnel attribute is used to
   identify the particular P-tunnel to which one or more multicast flows
   are being assigned.

   The PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA)contains the following fields:

   o  "Tunnel Type".  IANA is requested to assign a new tunnel type
      codepoint for "BIER".  This codepoint will be used to indicate
      that the PMSI is instantiated by BIER.

   o  "Tunnel Identifier".  When the "tunnel type" field is "BIER", this
      field contains two subfields:

      1.  The first subfield is a single octet, containing the sub-
          domain-id of the sub-domain to which the BFIR will assign the

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

          packets that it transmits on the PMSI identified by the NLRI
          of the BGP I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D route that contains this PTA.
          (How that sub-domain is chosen is outside the scope of this
          document.)

      2.  The second subfield is the BFR-Prefix (see [BIER_ARCH]) of the
          originator of the route that is carrying this PTA.  This will
          either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address.  Whether
          the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total
          length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.

   o  "MPLS label".  This field contains an upstream-assigned MPLS
      label.  It is assigned by the router that originates the BGP route
      to which the PTA is attached.  Constraints on the way in which the
      originating router selects this label are discussed below.

   o  "Flags".  When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the bits in the PTA
      Flags field are meaningful.  Details about the use of these bits
      can be found in Section 3.

      *  "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)".  This bit is introduced
         in [EXPLICIT_TRACKING].  A BFIR SHOULD NOT set this bit UNLESS
         it knows that all the BFERs in the BIER domain (or at least all
         the BFERs to which it needs to transmit) support this bit.
         (How this is known is outside the scope of this document.)
         This bit MAY be set in a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, but MUST
         NOT be set in I-PMSI A-D routes or in other S-PMSI A-D routes.

      *  "Leaf Info Required Bit".  The setting of this bit depends upon
         the type of route and the NLRI of the route that carries the
         PTA.

         +  In an I-PMSI A-D route or a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, the
            bit SHOULD be clear, unless the LIR-pF bit has also been set
            (see above).  This bit SHOULD also be clear in a (C-S,C-*)
            or (C-*,C-G) S-PMSI A-D route.

         +  In other S-PMSI A-D routes, the bit SHOULD be set.

   Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an I-PMSI or
   S-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be distributed beyond the
   boundaries of a BIER domain.  That is, any routers that receive the
   route must be in the same BIER domain as the originator of the route.
   If the originator is in more than one BIER domain, the route must be
   distributed only within the BIER domain in which the BFR-Prefix in
   the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.  As with all MVPN routes,
   distribution of these routes is controlled by the provisioning of
   Route Targets.

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   Suppose an ingress PE originates two x-PMSI A-D routes, where we use
   the term "x-PMSI" to mean "I-PMSI or S-PMSI".  Suppose both routes
   carry a PTA, and the PTA of each route specifies"BIER".

   o  If the two routes do not carry the same set of Route Targets
      (RTs), then their respective PTAs MUST contain different MPLS
      label values.

   o  If the ingress PE is supporting MVPN extranet ([EXTRANET])
      functionality, and if the two routes originate from different
      VRFs, then the respective PTAs of the two routes MUST contain
      different MPLS label values.

   o  If the ingress PE is supporting the "Extranet Separation" feature
      of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [EXTRANET], section ), and if
      one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
      community and the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
      two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.

   o  If segmented P-tunnels are being used, then the respective PTAs of
      the two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values, as long
      as the NLRIs are not identical.  In this case, the MPLS label can
      be used by the BFER to identify the particular C-flow to which a
      data packet belongs, and this greatly simplifies the process of
      forwarding a received packet to its next P-tunnel segment.  This
      is explained further in Section 4.

   When segmented P-tunnels are being used, an ABR or ASBR may receive,
   from a BIER domain, an x-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies "BIER".
   This means that BIER is being used for one segment of a segmented
   P-tunnel.  The ABR/ASBR may in turn need to originate an x-PMSI A-D
   route whose PTA identifies the next segment of the P-tunnel.  The
   next segment may also be "BIER".  Suppose an ASBR receives x-PMSI A-D
   routes R1 and R2, and as a result originates x-PMSI A-D routes R3 and
   R4 respectively, where the PTAs of each of the four routes specify a
   BIER.  Then the PTAs of R3 and R4 MUST NOT specify the same MPLS
   label, UNLESS both of the following conditions hold:

   o  R1 and R2 have the same "originating router" in their respective
      NLRIs.

   o  R1 and R2 specify the same MPLS label in their respective PTAs.

3.  Explicit Tracking

   When using BIER to transport an MVPN data packet through a BIER
   domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [BIER_ARCH]).  The

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   BFIR must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
   delivered.  This can be done in either of two ways:

   1.  By using the explicit tracking mechanism based on the "Leaf Info
       Required" flag, as specified in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514], or

   2.  By using the explicit tracking mechanism based on the LIR-pF flag
       as specified in [EXPLICIT_TRACKING].  This mechanism MAY be used
       if (and only if) segmented P-tunnels are not being used.

3.1.  Using the LIR Flag

   To determine the set of BFERs to which a given MVPN data packet needs
   to be delivered, the BFIR originating an S-PMSI A-D route sets the
   LIR bit in the route's PTA.  Per [RFC6514], the BFERs will respond
   with Leaf A-D routes.  By matching the received Leaf A-D routes to
   the originated S-PMSI A-D routes, the originator of the S-PMSI A-D
   route determines the set of BFERs that need to receive the multicast
   data flow (or flows) that is (are) identified in the NLRI of the of
   the S-PMSI A-D route.

   This requires that each BFIR originate an S-PMSI A-D route for each
   C-flow for which it serves as BFIR.  The BFIR MAY include, in each
   such route, a PTA as described in Section 2.  However, if the BFIR
   has originated an I-PMSI A-D route or a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route
   that "matches" (according to the rules of [RFC6625]) a particular
   C-flow, then it may do explicit tracking for that C-flow by
   originating an S-PMSI A-D route for that C-flow, but including a PTA
   that specifies "no tunnel type".

3.2.  Using the LIR-pF Flag

   If segmented P-tunnels are not being used, the BFIR can determine the
   set of BFERs to which a given MVPN data packet needs to be delivered
   by originating a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, and by setting the LIR-
   pF flag in the PTA of that route.  Per [EXPLICIT_TRACKING], each BFER
   will respond with one or more Leaf A-D routes, identifying the flows
   that it is expecting to receive from the BFIR that originated the
   (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route.

   A BFIR MUST NOT use this method of finding the set of BFERs needing
   to receive a given C-flow unless it knows that all those BFERs
   support the LIR-pF flag.  How this is known is outside the scope of
   this document.

   This option greatly reduces the number of S-PMSI A-D routes that a
   BFIR needs to originate; it now needs to originate only one such
   route, rather than one for each C-flow.  However, it does not provide

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   a way for the BFIR to assign a distinct label to each C-flow.
   Therefore it cannot be used when segmented P-tunnels are in use (see
   Section 4 for an explanation).

4.  Data Plane

   The MVPN application plays the role of the "multicast flow layer" as
   described in [BIER_ARCH].

4.1.  Encapsulation and Transmission

   To transmit an MVPN data packet, an ingress PE follows the rules of
   [RFC6625] to find the S-PMSI A-D route or I-PMSI A-D route that is a
   "match for transmission" for that packet.  (In applying the rules of
   [RFC6625], any S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA specifying "no tunnel
   information" is ignored.)  If the matching route has a PTA specifying
   a "BIER", the (upstream-assigned) MPLS label from that PTA is pushed
   on the packet's label stack.  Then the packet is encapsulated in a
   BIER header and forwarded, according to the procedures of [BIER_ARCH]
   and [BIER_ENCAPS].  (See especially Section 4, "Imposing and
   Processing the BIER Encapsulation", of [BIER_ENCAPS].)

   In order to create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the
   BFIR must know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet.  It
   determines this by finding all the Leaf A-D routes that correspond to
   the S-PMSI A-D route that is the packet's match for transmission.
   There are two different cases to consider:

   1.  The S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for transmission carries a
       PTA that has the LIR flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag
       set.

       In this case, the corresponding Leaf A-D routes are those whose
       "route key" field is identical to the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
       route.

   2.  The S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for transmission carries a
       PTA that has the LIR-pF flag.

       In this case, the corresponding Leaf A-D routes are those whose
       "route key" field is derived from the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
       route according to the procedures described in Section 5.2 of
       [EXPLICIT_TRACKING].

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

4.2.  Disposition

   The procedures for handling a received BIER packet at BFER depend on
   whether the BFER is an egress PE for the packet.  A BFER can tell
   whether it is an egress PE for a given BIER packet by examining the
   MPLS label that the packet is carrying immediately after the BIER
   header.  This will be an upstream-assigned label (from the BFIR) that
   has been advertised in the PTA of an S-PMSI A-D route.

   Note that if segmented P-tunnels are in use, a BFER might be a
   P-tunnel segmentation border router rather than an egress PE, or a
   BFER might be both an egress PE and a P-tunnel segmentation border
   router.

   Depending upon the role of the BFER for given packet, it may need to
   follow the procedures of Section 4.2.1, the procedures of
   Section 4.2.2, or both.

4.2.1.  At a BFER that is an Egress PE

   When a BFER receives an MVPN multicast data packet that has been
   BIER-encapsulated, it determines from the MPLS label at the top of
   the packet's label stack whether it is an egress PE for the packet or
   not.  If it is an egress PE, the BIER layer passes the following
   information to the multicast flow layer:

   o  The BFR-prefix corresponding to the sub-domain-id and BFIR-id in
      the BIER header.

   o  The "payload", which is an MPLS packet whose top label is an
      upstream-assigned label.  The BFR-prefix provides the "context" in
      which the upstream-assigned label is interpreted.

      Note that per [RFC5331], the context for an upstream-assigned
      label is the IP address of the label assigner, which in this case
      is the BFR-prefix of the BFIR.

4.2.2.  At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Boundary

   When segmented P-tunnels are being used, a BFER that receives a BIER-
   encapsulated MVPN multicast data packet may need to be forwarded on
   its next P-tunnel segment.  The choice of the next P-tunnel segment
   for the packet depends upon the C-flow to which the packet belongs.
   Since the BFIR assigns a distinct upstream-assigned MPLS label for
   each C-flow, the BFER can select the proper "next P-tunnel segment"
   for a given packet simply by looking up the upstream-assigned label
   that immediately follows the BIER header.  (If the BFIR had not
   assigned a distinct label to each C-flow, the BFER would need to

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   maintain all the state from the Multicast Flow Overlay in order to
   select the next P-tunnel segment.)

5.  Contributor Addresses

   Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:

   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: ice@cisco.com

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank Jeffrey Zhang for his ideas and
   contributions to this work.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign a value for "BIER" from the "P-Multicast
   Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry.  The
   reference should be this document.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [BIER_ARCH], [BIER_ENCAPS], [RFC6513]
   and [RFC6514] are applicable.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [BIER_ARCH]
              Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T.,
              and S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-architecture-
              03, January 2016.

   [BIER_ENCAPS]
              Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., and
              S. Aldrin, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit
              Replication in MPLS Networks", internet-draft draft-ietf-
              bier-mpls-encapsulation-04.txt, April 2016.

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <http://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,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [EXPLICIT_TRACKING]
              Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., and Z. Zhang,
              "Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast
              VPN", internet-draft draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-00,
              June 2016.

   [EXTRANET]
              Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y., and T.
              Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs", internet-
              draft draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-07, April 2016.

   [RFC7524]  Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Morin, T.,
              Grosclaude, I., Leymann, N., and S. Saad, "Inter-Area
              Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths
              (LSPs)", RFC 7524, DOI 10.17487/RFC7524, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7524>.

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft               MVPN with BIER                    June 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Eric C. Rosen (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, Massachusetts  01886
   United States

   Email: erosen@juniper.net

   Mahesh Sivakumar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   510 McCarthy Blvd
   Milpitas, California  95035
   United States

   Email: masivaku@cisco.com

   Sam K Aldrin
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, California
   United States

   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com

   Andrew Dolganow
   Alcatel-Lucent
   600 March Rd.
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 2E6
   Canada

   Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com

   Tony Przygienda
   Ericsson
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, California  95134
   United States

   Email: antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com

Rosen, et al.           Expires December 22, 2016              [Page 12]