Skip to main content

Multicast VPN Upstream Designated Forwarder Selection
draft-wang-bess-mvpn-upstream-df-selection-09

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Authors Fanghong Duan , Siyu Chen , Yisong Liu , Heng Wang
Last updated 2024-05-24 (Latest revision 2023-11-21)
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-wang-bess-mvpn-upstream-df-selection-09
Network Working Group                                            F. Duan
Internet-Draft                                                   S. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: 25 November 2024                                         Y. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                 H. Wang
                                               Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd.
                                                             24 May 2024

         Multicast VPN Upstream Designated Forwarder Selection
             draft-wang-bess-mvpn-upstream-df-selection-09

Abstract

   This document defines Multicast Virtual Private Network (VPN)
   extensions and procedures of designated forwarder election performed
   between ingress PEs, which is different from the one described in
   [RFC9026] in which the upstream designated forwarder determined by
   using the "Standby PE Community" carried in the C-Multicast routes.
   Based on the DF election, the failure detection point discovery
   mechanism between DF and standby DF is extended in MVPN procedures to
   achieve fast failover by using BFD session to track the status of
   detection point.  To realize a stable "warm root standby", this
   document obsolete the P-Tunnel status determining procedure for
   downstream PEs in regular MVPN by introducing a RPF Set Checking
   mechanism as an instead.

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/.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   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 November 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Passive IDF Negotiation Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Active IDF Negotiation Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  IDF Negotiation Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  BFD Discriminator Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.1.  Originating VPN Routes to Multicast Sources . . . . .   7
       5.1.2.  Originating C-Multicast Routes  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.3.  Ingress Designated Forwarder Selection  . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.4.  Failure Detection and Fast Failover . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Data Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.1.  Procedure on Root PEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.2.  Procedure on Leaf PEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.3.  Distinguishing UMH and C-multicast Routes . . . . . . . .  12
     5.4.  Segmented Inter-AS Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Root PE Not Support IDF Election  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  Leaf PE Not Support IDF Election  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   MVPN [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] defines the MVPN architecture and MVPN
   protocol specification which include the basic procedures for
   selecting the Upstream Multicast Hop. Further [RFC9026] defines some
   extensions to select the primary and standby upstream PE for a VPN
   multicast flow on downstream PEs.  After selecting the Upstream
   Multicast Hop, the downstream PEs send MVPN C-Multicast routes to
   both primary and standby Upstream PE.  Upon receiving the MVPN join
   routes, the upstream / ingress PEs can either perform "hot root
   standby" or "warm root standby".  For the "hot root standby"
   mechanism, all the ingress PEs, regardless of the primary or standby
   role, forward (C-S,C-G) flow to other PEs through a P-tunnel, forcing
   the egress PEs to discard all but one.  In this way, the failover can
   be conducted by leaf PE within extremely short duration when the
   failure of upstream link or device is detected.  However, this will
   cause the steady traffic redundancy throughout the backbone network.
   In the scenario where bandwidth waste issue is concerned, such as
   enterprise networks crossing provider networks, the "warm root
   standby" mechanism is expected to be a better solution.  However,
   there are some problems when deploying the "warm root standby"
   mechanism described in [RFC9026].

   a.  Upon the failure of primary ingress PE, the leaf PE needs to send
       the new C-multicast route towards the standby ingress PE without
       carrying the Standby PE BGP Community according to [RFC9026].
       Leaf PE needs to update all relevant C-multicast routes and sends
       them to the standby ingress PE.  For example, if there are 1000
       (C-S,C-G)s, 1000 C-multicast routes will be updated and resent so
       that the standby PE can finally forward traffic.  The failover
       time can hardly reach the same level of "hot root standby"
       mechanism.

   b.  There is no endogenous mechanism for standby ingress PEs to
       discover and detect the failure of primary ingress PEs, resulting
       in the uncertainty in deployment and implementation.  If the
       standby ingress PE can directly detect the failure of the primary
       ingress PE, it can take over the role of designated forwarder and
       send the traffic immediately.

   c.  In [RFC9026], the standby ingress PE is determined by using
       "Standby PE Community" carried in the C-Multicast routes.  The
       premise of this mechanism is that all leaf PEs choose the same
       primary and standby ingress PEs, which may not be met due to
       transient unicast routing inconsistencies, the inconsistencies of

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

       P-Tunnel status determined by each leaf PE or lack of support of
       the Standby PE community on leaf PE, causing that the "warm root
       standby" mechanism is not stable and returns to "hot root
       standby" mode because the standby ingress PE also sends multicast
       traffic to backbone when the condition is not satisfied.

   d.  When the primary and standby designated forwarders are selected
       based on IP addresses of root PEs, the primary and standby roles
       are fixed for each multicast flow.  Ingress PEs cannot perform
       load balancing for different multicast traffic.  Hashing
       algorithm in [RFC6513] utilized source and group addresses and
       allows load balancing for different (C-S,C-G)s.  However, the
       specific procedure of selecting a standby PE was not specified.

   The hot root standby is good at fast failover.  The warm root standby
   has advantages of saving the bandwidth.  In order to have both
   advantages of hot root standby and warm root standby, this document
   defines a new MVPN procedure of designated forwarder election
   performed between ingress PEs.  Based on the DF election, the failure
   detection point discovery mechanism between DF and standby DF is
   extended to achieve fast failover by using a BFD session to track the
   status of detection point.  To realize a stable "warm root standby",
   this document obsoletes the P-Tunnel status determining procedure for
   downstream PEs in regular MVPN by introducing a RPF Set Checking
   mechanism as an instead.

2.  Terminology

   The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined
   in[RFC6513], [RFC6514] and [RFC9026].

   For convenience of description, the abbreviations used in this
   document is listed below.

      DF: Designated Forwarder

      IDF: Ingress Designated Forwarder

      UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop

      P-tunnel: Provider-Tunnel

      VPN: Virtual Private Network

      MVPN: Multicast VPN

      GTM: Global Table Multicast

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

      RD: Route Distinguisher

      NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information

      BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

      MD: My Discriminator

      VRI: VRF Route Import Extended Community

      RR: Route Reflector

      SFS: Selective Forwarder Selection

      PTA: PMSI Tunnel Attribute

   A new term is introduced below.

      RPF Set Checking: RPF Set is a set of valid upstream interfaces
      that can accept multicast traffic.  RPF Set checking allows
      multicast traffic to be received from backup P-Tunnel quickly when
      failure occurs.

3.  Scenario

3.1.  Passive IDF Negotiation Mode

                    +------------------------+
                    |                        |
                / Root PE1                Leaf PE1 ----- R1
              /     |                        |
      S1 --- CE     |    Provider Backbone   |
              \     |                        |
               \  Root PE2                Leaf PE2 ----- R2
                    |                        |
                    +------------------------+

                   Figure 1: Passive IDF Negotiation Mode

   In this scenario, the interfaces multihoming CE to provider's root
   PEs are bundled together and working in a eth-trunk mode, and a
   multichassis protocol is running between the multi-homed root PEs to
   coordinate with the CE to perform single active or all active data
   sending mode between CE and root PEs.  Regardless either of the two
   sending mode is chosen, CE received multicast data from S1 only
   selects one interface to forward traffic, thus the root PE homed by

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   the selected interface is responsible for sending the corresponding
   multicast traffic to leaf PEs.  The multi-homed root PEs do not
   really run an IDF negotiation procedure between themselves but accept
   the IDF role passively.  Therefore, we call this scenario using
   Passive IDF Negotiation Mode in this document.

3.2.  Active IDF Negotiation Mode

                                 +------------------------+
          +----------------+     |                        |
          |                | -- Root PE1                Leaf PE1 ----- R1
          |                |     |                        |
   S1 --- | Client Network |     |    Provider Backbone   |
          |                |     |                        |
          |                | -- Root PE2                Leaf PE2 ----- R2
          +----------------+     |                        |
                                 +------------------------+

                Figure 2: Active IDF Negotiation Mode

   In this scenario, the "Client Network" is a layer 3 network area
   containing one or more CE routers.  If only one CE router is included
   in the "Client Network" , the main difference between this
   circumstance and above is that the interfaces multihoming CE to root
   PEs are not bundled and each of them is an individual layer 3
   interface.  The IP subnet of the multihoming interfaces can be in
   either same or different, each of the multi-homed root PEs can
   receive one copy of the specific multicast stream (S1, G) received
   through the "Client Network".  For the "warm root standby" mechanism,
   only one root PE (Called IDF in this document) can send the received
   multicast traffic to leaf PEs through provider's backbone.  Thus the
   IDF must be selected among the multi-homed root PEs by themselves.
   So, in this document, we call this scenario using Active IDF
   Negotiation Mode.

4.  Specification

4.1.  IDF Negotiation Community

   This community is carried in the UMH routes and used by the multi-
   homed root PEs to notify each other to perform IDF election.  Leaf
   PEs can also check whether the UMH route is containing this community
   to perform checking according to the RPF Set Checklist.  The value of
   this community will be allocated by IANA for each negotiation mode
   individually from the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known
   Communities" registry using the First Come First Served registration
   policy.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

4.2.  BFD Discriminator Attribute

   This attribute is carried in UMH routes and its format reuses the one
   defined in [RFC9026] with the "BFD Mode" field redefined as a unicast
   BFD session type, of which the value is recommended to be 2 and will
   be allocated by IANA according to the registration policy.  The
   source IP optional TLV in this document is mandatory and used to
   discover the failure detection point of the IDF.

5.  Procedure

5.1.  Signaling

   In this section, the procedure is under the condition that the value
   of the RDs of multi-homed root PEs for a same MVPN are distinct,
   which means that the VPN route originated by each multi-homed PE can
   be received by the others and leaf PEs can also perform SFS reliably.

5.1.1.  Originating VPN Routes to Multicast Sources

   To perform IDF election procedure in this document, the multi-homed
   root PEs MUST include an IDF negotiation Community in the originating
   VPN routes to multicast sources.  The negotiation mode (Passive or
   Active) is determined by the connection type of the Client network /
   CE, and MUST be configured consistently on each multi-homed root PE.

   In order to perform endogenous mechanism of IDF election and fast
   failure detection, the BFD Discriminator Attribute described in
   section 4.2 MUST also be carried when each multi-homed root PE
   originates a UMH routes, with the MD field filled with a local
   configured BFD discriminator and the IP address field of the Source
   IP TLV filled with the local IP of the interface connecting to the
   Client network / CE, from which the prefix of the originating UMH
   route is learned.  If the UMH prefix is learned from more than one
   local interface, the one chosen to fill the Source IP TLV of the BFD
   Discriminator Attribute MUST be consistent with the one selected as
   RPF interface for the multicast stream sent by the corresponding
   multicast source.  In this document, the filled Source IP address is
   the failure detection point, if the corresponding root PE is selected
   as the IDF of a specific multicast stream, it is used to establish a
   BFD session to do fast tracking of failure of IDF.  In IPv6
   scenarios, a global IPv6 address SHOULD be configured on the client
   facing interfaces to succeed in the establishment of multi-hop IPv6
   BFD sessions.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

5.1.2.  Originating C-Multicast Routes

   If a leaf PE decides to send C-Multicast routes to upstream PEs for a
   given (C-S,C-G), it follows the procedure described in [RFC6514]
   excepting that the RPF route of the c-root has an IDF negotiation
   community.  According to the negotiation community, a distinct
   C-Multicast route for (C-S,C-G) is sent to each multi-homed root PE.
   Leaf PE installs all P-Tunnels rooted from the multi-homed PEs into
   the RPF tunnel checklist of the corresponding multicast traffic
   (C-S,C-G).

   If there is a local receiver connected to one of the multi-homed root
   PEs and the Passive IDF Negotiation Mode is performed between them,
   the root PE having local receivers sends the specific C-Multicast
   route (C-S,C-G) joined by the local receivers to the multi-homed
   others, after which it installs all P-Tunnels rooted from the multi-
   homed others and local upstream interface into the RPF tunnel
   checklist of the corresponding multicast traffic (C-S,C-G).

5.1.3.  Ingress Designated Forwarder Selection

   For Passive IDF election, it is performed by CE routers as described
   in section 3.1.  This section describes two optional solutions for
   Active IDF election.

5.1.3.1.  Out-Of-Band Mechanism

   VRRP specifies an election protocol that dynamically assigns
   responsibility of a virtual router to one of the VRRP routers on a
   LAN.  The VRRP router controlling the IPv4 or IPv6 address(es)
   associated with a virtual router is called the Master, and it
   forwards packets sent to these IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.  Similarly,
   the role of the VRRP routers associated with a virtual router can
   also be that of the upstream PEs in MVPN dual homing upstream PEs
   deployment.

   The method of mapping the role of a VRRP router to that of a MVPN
   upstream PE is more likely an administrative measure and could be
   implemented as configurable policies.  Both the primary and standby
   PEs install VRF PIM state corresponding to BGP Source Tree Join route
   and send C-Join messages to the CE toward C-S.  Whereas only the
   primary upstream PE (Virtual Router Master according to VRRP)
   forwards (C-S,C-G) flow to downstream PEs through a P-tunnel if IDF
   election is performing between the upstream PEs.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   Other private implementations or similar designated forwarder
   selection technologies could also be optional.  However, a feasible
   technology should has the ability to be deployed per VRF and be
   associated with one Multicast VPN instance.  All PEs connected to the
   same customer's layer 3 network area MUST keep a coincident status of
   whether performing IDF election or not by negotiating dynamically or
   being configured manually, the dynamic protocol for negotiation of
   this status is outside the scope of this document.

5.1.3.2.  Endogenous Mechanism

   Considering a multicast source connecting to the client network area
   multihoming to the provider network, the prefix of the source can be
   learned by all multi-homed root PEs, each of which originates a
   corresponding VPN route with a VRI Extended Community including the
   originator's IP address to the others and leaf PEs.  According to
   that, each multi-homed root PE can learn all the others' originator
   IP addresses for a specific multicast source, based on which the IDF
   can be calculated consistently on each root.

   The default procedure for IDF election is at the granularity of
   (C-S,C-G).  There are two options listed below for IDF election of a
   specific multicast source C-S, a deployment can use each of them and
   MUST be configured consistently among the multi-homed root PEs:

   a.  To perform single IDF election for all C-Gs of a specific
       multicast source C-S, each PE builds an ordered list in ascending
       order of the IP addresses of all multi-homed PE nodes learning
       the UMH routes to the multicast source C-S (including itself).
       As described in the first paragraph of this section, each IP
       address in this list is extracted from the Global Administrator
       field of VRI Extended Community carried in those UMH routes
       related to the specified multicast source C-S.  Every PE is then
       given an ordinal indicating its position in the ordered list,
       starting with 0 as the ordinal for the PE with the numerically
       lowest IP address.  The originator IP address with ordinal 0 is
       the winner, and the corresponding root PE is selected as IDF by
       every PE.  The root PE of which the corresponding originator IP
       address is sub-optimal is selected as Standby IDF.

   b.  To perform IDF election for each C-G of a specific multicast
       source C-S, each PE also builds an ordered list of the IP
       addresses of all the multi-homed PE nodes at first.  The
       difference between this option and above is that the election of
       IDF occurs not upon receiving all UMH routes of the other multi-
       homed PEs of the specified C-S but upon receiving the C-multicast
       join of the corresponding C-G.  Assuming an ordered list of N
       elements, the PE with ordinal i is the IDF for a C-G when (C-G

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

       mod N) = i.  The PE with ordinal j is the Standby IDF when j is
       (C-G mod (N-1)).  The calculation of standby IDF uses the ordered
       IP addresses list without considering the existence of the
       elected IDF element.

   In order to reduce traffic waste between the Client Network and root
   PEs, a root PE can only send C-PIM Join messages towards the Client
   Network if it is the primary or standby DF.

5.1.4.  Failure Detection and Fast Failover

   For the Passive IDF Negotiation Mode, the CE router is responsible
   for the failure detection of multihoming links or multi-homed PE
   nodes using some existing solution, which is out the scope of this
   document.  For the Active IDF Negotiation Mode with Out-Of-Band
   Mechanism described in section 5.1.3.1, the failure detection
   solution is always built in the multichassis protocols used for IDF
   election.  This section only details the failure detection and fast
   failover procedure for the Active IDF negotiation mode with
   endogenous mechanism.  Two methods are proposed to detect the
   failure.

5.1.4.1.  BFD Method

   To detect the failure of the node or the client facing link of IDF
   quickly, after the election of IDF PE and Standby IDF PE, the Standby
   IDF initializes a BFD session.  Several important parameters of the
   BFD session are introduced as follows.  The source IP of the BFD
   session uses a local configured IP address of the corresponding
   multicast VRF.  The destination IP is extracted from the Source IP
   TLV of BFD Discriminator Attribute carried in the UMH route sent by
   the IDF.  MD is filled with the MD field of BFD Discriminator
   Attribute carried in VPN routes originated by current Standby IDF.
   The YD(Your Discriminator) of the BFD session is dynamically learned
   through the BFD initialization procedure.

   Upon the occasion of the failure, the status of the BFD session goes
   down.  The Standby IDF PE of the C-Gs selecting the failure /
   affected node as IDF takes over the primary role and sends the
   multicast traffic belonging to C-Gs to leaf PEs through the backbone.
   The failure / affected PE withdraws its VPN route advertised before,
   this will re-trigger the procedure described in section 5.1.3.2 and a
   new IDF PE (which was the old Standby IDF PE) and Standby IDF PE will
   be selected.  The new standby IDF MUST send C-PIM Join message
   towards Client Network to receive multicast traffic.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   If the previous failure node / link goes up again or a new multi-
   homed PE of the specified multicast source is coming up and the IDF
   PE is calculated to be changed, the new IDF will take over the
   running IDF.  To avoid data transfer crash, the running IDF (That
   should be the new Standby IDF) does not trigger the establishment of
   BFD session with new IDF until the local configured failback time
   expires, during which it keeps the IDF role and waits the new IDF
   completing the establishment of the multicast path from the SDR of
   the specified multicast source to itself.  Upon the occasion of BFD
   session goes up, the running IDF stops sending multicast traffic to
   leaf PEs and the new IDF takes over the IDF role to send multicast
   stream for (C-S,C-G).

5.1.4.2.  Monitoring traffic from IDF

   The second method needs standby IDF to detect the failure by joining
   a P-Tunnel rooted at the IDF and monitoring the traffic received from
   the P-Tunnel.  Even though there may be no local receiver connected
   to the standby IDF, the standby IDF needs to join the P-Tunnel by
   sending Leaf A-D Route or P-Tree Signaling.  Standby IDF then sends
   the C-Multicast Route to IDF in order to receive traffic from the
   P-Tunnel.  IDF will receive traffic from the IDF and the client
   facing interface simultaneously.  However, it does not forward
   traffic to leaf PE when failure is not detected.  When failures occur
   between the client network and IDF, the standby IDF will no longer
   receive any traffic from the P-Tunnel.  The detection of interrupted
   flow will trigger the role transition from standby IDF to IDF.  Then
   the new IDF will forward traffic to leaf PE.

   However, the standby IDF may also cannot receive traffic when the
   failure occurs between the IDF and standby IDF.  Under this
   circumstance, the standby IDF will switch to IDF when the client
   facing link and IDF still work well.  There will be dual IDFs and
   leaf PE will receive two copies of the same flow.  Suggestions about
   deployment are provided to avoid this situation:

   a.  Multiple parallel links are suggested to be deployed between the
       IDF and standby IDF.  The probability of dual IDFs due to link
       failure can be greatly reduced.

   b.  PMSI tunnel protection can be utilized together.  When the link
       between IDF and standby IDF fails, the underlay local protection
       of PMSI Tunnel can ensure that standby IDF can still receive
       traffic from IDF and avoid the dual-IDF situation.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

5.2.  Data Forwarding

5.2.1.  Procedure on Root PEs

   For the Passive IDF Negotiation Mode, the set of leaves of P-Tunnel
   rooted at each multi-homed PE has the others as members if the others
   have local receivers willing to accept the corresponding C-Flow.  The
   detailed signaling procedure is described in section 5.1.2.  When CE
   sends multicast data performing load balance to only one root PE
   (Which is the Passive IDF), IDF send this multicast traffic to the
   leaf PEs and the other multi-homed root PEs.  When the multi-homed
   root PEs receive the C-Flow, it MUST perform RPF Set Checking, by
   accepting the data from either the client facing interface learning
   the corresponding route of the multicast source or anyone of the
   P-Tunnels rooted at the other multi-homed PEs.  To avoid multicast
   traffic loop and duplication, the data received from the P-Tunnels at
   each root PE MUST NOT send back to P-Tunnels again and can only be
   forwarded to the local receivers of the receiving PE.

   For the Active IDF Negotiation Mode, each multi-homed root PE
   receives a copy of C-Flow and forwards the multicast traffic to its
   local receivers.  Only DF can send data to leaf PEs through backbone.
   All of the multi-homed root PEs perform RPF Set checking by matching
   their client facing interface exactly.

5.2.2.  Procedure on Leaf PEs

   For either of the two IDF negotiation modes described in this
   document, leaf PEs install each P-Tunnel rooted at each multi-homed
   root PE into the RPF Set checklist for the corresponding multicast
   flow (C-S,C-G), thus the multicast data sent by each of the multi-
   homed root PEs can be accepted by leaf PEs.  Upon the failure of IDF,
   the Standby IDF takes over the primary role and leaf PEs are ready to
   receive the data sent by the new primary IDF with no latency thanks
   to the RPF Set checking mechanism.

5.3.  Distinguishing UMH and C-multicast Routes

   It was recommended in RFC 6514, on each multi-homed root PE, the UMH
   VRF of the MVPN MUST use its own distinct RD to support non-congruent
   unicast and multicast connectivity, the procedure described in above
   section is also under this premise.  However, in [RFC7716], the UMH
   routes are not sent in the VPN-IP SAFI and there is no RD included in
   the NLRI key.  There are also some other scenarios that the UMH VRF
   of the MVPN on the multi-homed PEs MUST be configured with a same RD
   for some deployment reasons, which causing that the IDF negotiation
   procedure can hardly be performed because that the UMH route
   originated by each multi-homed root PE cannot be collected reliably

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   by the other root PEs and leaf PEs because of the route selecting
   mechanism on BGP RRs.  When UMH routes to same multicast source from
   different root PEs carry same RD or no RD, they will be same from the
   perspective of leaf PEs.  Because Originating Router's IP Address is
   not the key field when the UMH route is processed.

   For the scenarios of the same RD, this document introduces a new type
   of UMH route to be sent in MVPN SAFI, of which the NLRI key consists
   of the following fields:

          +------------------------------------------------+
          |  RD (8 octets)                                 |
          +------------------------------------------------+
          |  IP Prefix Length (1 octet, 0 to 32 / 128)     |
          +------------------------------------------------+
          |  IP Prefix (4 / 16 octets )                    |
          +------------------------------------------------+
          |  Originating Router's IP Addr (4 / 16 octets)  |
          +------------------------------------------------+

                         Figure 3: MVPN UMH Routes

   The length of the IP Prefix field is determined by the address family
   of MVPN.  If IPv4 is being used, it will be 4 octets.  Otherwise it
   will be 16 octets for IPv6.  After determining the length of IP
   Prefix field, the length of the Originating Router's IP Addr field is
   judged by NLRI key length.  The type of this route will be allocated
   in IANA.

   If the RDs of the UMH VRFs on the multi-homed root PEs are same, the
   root PEs import the routes of the client multicast sources to their
   local UMH VRFs and send above UMH routes to all other PEs of the
   MVPN.  The UMH routes will carry a VRI Extended Community described
   in [RFC6514], an IDF negotiation Community and a BFD Discriminator
   Attribute described in this document.  All the procedure applied to
   the VPN-IP routes described in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] SHOULD be
   inherited by this UMH route.  The receivers (which should be MVPN
   PEs) of this route MUST install it into their local multicast RIB as
   UMH route and it has a higher priority than other existing UMH route
   type while a MVPN PE using it to determine the upstream PE of a
   specified (C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G).  The Originating Router's IP Addr
   will be used to identify UMH routes from different upstream PEs.

   For the non-segmented Inter-AS P-Tunnel over IPv6 infrastructure
   scenarios, the length of Source AS field of C-Multicast routes cannot
   hold an IPv6 address, causing that it is hard to distinguish the two
   C-Multicast routes with a same granularity of (C-S,C-G) or (C-*,C-G)

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   sent to two ingress PEs individually.  To solve this problem, this
   document introduces a Root Distinguisher Extended Community, which is
   an IP-address-specific Extended Community with a fixed type of IPv4.
   The Global Administrator field of this Extended Community is filled
   with a 4-octet global unique value configured.  This 4-octet value
   and the IPv6 Originating Router's IP Addresses of each MVPN PE needs
   not to be a routable IPv4 address.  The Local Administrator field of
   the Extended Community is filled with 0.  The type and sub type of
   this Extended Community will be allocated in IANA.

   The Root Distinguishing Extended Community is carried in the Intra-AS
   AD routes or the wildcard S-PMSI AD routes.  According to [RFC6514]
   and [RFC6515], the non-segmented Inter-AS and IPv6 infrastructure
   scenarios are determined on MVPN leaf PEs.  The Source AS field of
   the C-Multicast routes will be filled with the root distinguishing
   value of root PEs which the route is sent to.

5.4.  Segmented Inter-AS Scenario

   In the regular procedure of [RFC6514], Intra-AS AD route is only used
   in non-segmented Inter-AS scenario.  In the segmented Inter-AS
   scenario, different Intra-AS AD routes originated by different PEs in
   the same AS are aggregated to a single Inter-AS AD route on ASBRs
   with the granularity of <AS, MVPN>.  The specific original root PE's
   information is substituted with source AS during the aggregation,
   which results in that leaf PEs located in downstream ASes cannot
   differentiate two multicast traffic sent by different root PEs in the
   same original AS.

   In this document, two approaches are proposed to facilitate the root
   PE selection of leaf PEs in downstream ASes.

   This first approach is to use the wildcard S-PMSI AD route described
   in [RFC6625] instead of Intra-AS AD route.  As described in
   [RFC6514], the S-PMSI AD route will not be aggregated by ASBR while
   being used to set up Inter-AS segmented S-PMSI tunnels, result in
   that Leaf PE in downstream AS can do explicit tracking of those
   tunnels established from the redundant PEs located in upstream AS.
   The propagation procedure between ASes follows the description in
   section 12.2 of [RFC6514].

   The second method is to use PE Distinguisher Labels attribute defined
   in [RFC6514] to carry PE address and corresponding upstream assigned
   label at the segmentation point.  In the segmented scenario, the PE
   Distinguisher Labels attribute SHOULD be distributed with the Inter-
   AS A-D route.  When the multicast traffic is received from the Intra-
   AS P-Tunnel from an ingress root PE on ASBR, the ASBR will switch
   Intra-AS P-Tunnel to Inter-AS P-Tunnel and add the corresponding PE

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   Distinguisher Label as an inner label into the label stack.  In this
   way, leaf PE will recognise the root PE of the multicast traffic and
   RPF Checking can be performed accordingly.  As described in
   [RFC6514], leaf PE will find corresponding Inter-AS A-D route while
   sending C-multicast route.  It fills source-AS field of the
   C-multicast route with the corresponding PE Distinguisher Label
   carried in the Inter-AS A-D route.

6.  Backward Compatibility

   When some devices do not support MVPN Upstream IDF Election, the
   following procedures are introduced to support the backward
   compatibility and end-to-end MVPN service.  This section mainly
   discuss the situation that root PE and leaf PE does not support the
   IDF election function simultaneously.

6.1.  Root PE Not Support IDF Election

   When a root PE does not support MVPN Upstream IDF Election, the UMH
   route sent by the root PE will not carry IDF Negotiation Community.
   Other root PEs will check all received UMH routes with the same
   prefix.  As long as one of these routes does not carry the community,
   the IDF election procedures will not be executed and hot root standby
   will be conducted.

   Leaf PE will also check the received UMH routes.  When one of the
   received UMH route does not carry the IDF Negotiation Community, the
   RPF Set checklist will not be used.  The RPF Checking will be based
   on the normal procedure that only one upstream interface will be
   considered as the valid upstream interface for certain (C-S,C-G).

6.2.  Leaf PE Not Support IDF Election

   When leaf PE does not support the IDF Election or it cannot become
   the leaf of PMSI Tunnel rooted at the main IDF, it must revert back
   to join the normal PMSI P-Tunnel to receive multicast traffic.  A new
   extra PMSI attribute called "Secondary PMSI Tunnel Attribute" is
   appended after the existing PTA in the x-PMSI A-D route sent by the
   primary and standby IDF to identify the warm PMSI Tunnel.  The format
   and content of "Secondary PMSI Tunnel Attribute" are same as PTA
   defined in [RFC6514].  The attribute type (Attr Type) field will be
   allocated by IANA.

   When leaf PE does not support the IDF Election function, it cannot
   recognise these Secondary attribute.  Therefore, the leaf PE will
   join the PMSI Tunnel identified by the normal PTA defined in
   [RFC6514].  The explicit tracking defined in [RFC6514] will be
   conducted.  Even if leaf PE supports the IDF Election function, it

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   may not be able to join the "Warm Tunnel" due to certain reasons,
   such as local policy.  Under this condition, leaf PE can also join
   the original PMSI Tunnel.

   When leaf PE decide to join the "Warm PMSI Tunnel" identified by the
   Secondary PTA, it will send C-Multicast route to root PEs.  The
   x-PMSI Leaf A-D route will carry a "Secondary Indication Community".
   The value of this community will be allocated by IANA.

   When root PEs are performing the IDF Election, only IDF can forward
   corresponding traffic into the PMSI Tunnel identified by "Secondary
   PTA".  One multicast traffic can be carried by both the normal PMSI
   Tunnel and warm PMSI Tunnel simultaneously.  Only the warm PMSI
   Tunnel is controlled by the aforementioned IDF Negotiation Status.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document follows the security considerations specified in
   [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].  In addition, because the establishment of
   segmented Inter-AS PMSI tunnel is introduced by using Intra-AS AD
   routes in this document, the Originator's IP addresses are exposed
   between ASes which may cause some security risks in the scenarios of
   different service providers for different ASes.  In order to reduce
   the impact, the Intra-AS AD routes to be leaked between ASes MUST be
   controlled under security policies so that the numbers of the leaked
   Originator's IP addresses can be reduced.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new BGP Community called IDF negotiation
   Community, of which the value will be allocated from IANA for each
   negotiation mode individually.  The BFD Discriminator Attribute
   defined in [RFC9026] is reused and the value of BFD Mode is
   recommended to be 2 in this document, which will be reviewed by IANA.

   This document defines a new UMH route type for MVPN, of which the
   value is recommended to be 8 and will be reviewed by IANA.  This
   document defines a new BGP Extended Community called "Root
   Distinguisher", this Community is of an extended type and is
   transitive, the Type and Sub-Type are TBD and will be allocated from
   IANA.

   This document defines a new PMSI Tunnel Attribute called "Secondary
   PMSI Tunnel Attribute" and a new community called "Secondary
   Indication Community".  Their attribute types will be allocated by
   IANA.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Jingrong Xie and Jeffrey Zhang, for their
   reviews, comments and suggestions.

10.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC5798]  Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
              Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6515]  Aggarwal, R. and E. Rosen, "IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure
              Addresses in BGP Updates for Multicast VPN", RFC 6515,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6515, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6515>.

   [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>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7524>.

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft         MVPN Upstream DF Selection               May 2024

   [RFC7716]  Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
              and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
              VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9026]  Morin, T., Ed., Kebler, R., Ed., and G. Mirsky, Ed.,
              "Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover", RFC 9026,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9026, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fanghong Duan
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: duanfanghong@huawei.com

   Siyu Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: chensiyu27@huawei.com

   Yisong Liu
   China Mobile
   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com

   Heng Wang
   Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd.
   Email: wangheng1@ruijie.com.cn

Duan, et al.            Expires 25 November 2024               [Page 18]