\
Network Working Group                                    H. Bidgoli, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                                V. Voyer
Expires: May 1, 2021                                         Bell Canada
                                                                A. Stone
                                                                   Nokia
                                                               P. Parekh
                                                            Cisco System
                                                                S. Krier
                                                        A. Venkateswaran
                                                      Cisco System, Inc.
                                                        October 28, 2020


                    Advertising p2mp policies in BGP
                     draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-01

Abstract

   SR P2MP policies are set of policies that enable architecture for
   P2MP service delivery.

   A P2MP policy consists of candidate paths that connects the Root of
   the Tree to a set of Leaves.  The P2MP policy is composed of
   replication segments.  A replication segment is a forwarding
   instruction for a candidate path which is downloaded to the Root,
   transit nodes and the leaves.

   This document specifies a new BGP SAFI with a new NLRI in order to
   advertise P2MP policy from a controller to a set of nodes.

   This document introduces two new route types within this NLRI, one
   for P2MP policy and its candidate paths that need to be programmed on
   the Root node and another for the replication segment and forwarding
   instructions that needs to be programmed on the Root, and optionally
   on Transit and Leaf nodes.

   It should be noted that this document does not specify how the Root
   and the Leaves are discovered on the controller, it only describes
   how the P2MP Policy and Replication Segments are programmed from the
   controller to the nodes.

Status of This Memo

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





Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   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 May 1, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Encoding  . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  P2MP Policy SAFI and NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  P2MP Policy Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  Non-shared Tree Replication segment Route . . . . . .   6
       3.1.3.  Shared Tree Replication Segment Route . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  SR P2MP policy encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  replication segment encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  P2MP Policy Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.1.  preference Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.2.  leaf-list Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.3.  path-instance Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
         3.3.3.1.  active instance-id Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
         3.3.3.2.  instance-id Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  replication segment Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.4.1.  Replication SID (Binding SID) . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.4.2.  down stream nodes Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11



Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


       3.4.3.  segment list Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.4.4.  segment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  P2MP Policy Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  Configuration and advertisement of P2MP Policies  . . . .  13
     4.2.  Reception of an P2MP Policy NLRI  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Global Optimization for P2MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  IANA Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The draft [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] defines a variant of the SR
   Policy [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] for constructing a
   P2MP segment to support multicast service delivery.

   A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy contains a set of candidate paths
   and identifies a Root node and a set of Leaf nodes in a Segment
   Routing Domain.  The draft also defines a Replication segment, which
   corresponds to the state of a P2MP segment on a particular node.  The
   Replication segment is the forwarding instruction for a P2MP LSP at
   the Root, Transit and Leaf nodes.

   For a P2MP segment, a controller may be used to compute a tree from a
   Root node to a set of Leaf nodes, optionally via a set of replication
   nodes.  A packet is replicated at the root node and optionally on
   Replication nodes towards each Leaf node.

   We define two types of a P2MP segment: Spray and Replication.

   A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could be via Ingress
   Replication (aka Spray in some SR context), i.e., the root unicasts
   individual copies of traffic to each leaf.  The corresponding P2MP
   segment consists of replication segments only for the root and the
   leaves.

   A Point-to-Multipoint service delivery could also be via Downstream
   Replication (aka TreeSID in some SR context), i.e., the root and some
   downstream replication nodes replicate the traffic along the way as
   it traverses closer to the leaves.

   It should be noted that two replication nodes can be connected
   directly, or they can be connected via unicast SR segment or a
   segment list.



Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   The leaves and the root of a p2mp policy can be discovered via the
   multicast protocols or procedures like NG-MVPN [RFC6513] or manually
   configured on the PCC (CLI) or the PCE.

   Base on the discovered root and leaves the controller builds a P2MP
   policy and advertise it to the head-end router (i.e. the root of the
   P2MP Tree).  The advertisement uses BGP extensions defined in this
   document.  In addition, the controller builds the replication
   segments on each segment of the tree, Root, Transit and Leaf nodes
   and downloads the forwarding instructions to the nodes via BGP
   extensions defined in this document.

   As it was mentioned a SR p2mp policy is a variant of the SR policy
   and as such it reuses the concept of a candidate path.  This draft
   reuses some of the concepts and TLVs mentioned in
   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]

   A candidate path with in the P2MP policy can contain multiple path-
   instances.  A path-instance can be viewed as a P2MP LSP.  For
   candidate path global optimization purposes two or more path-
   instances can be used to execute make before break procedures.

   Each path-instance is a P2MP LSP as such each path-instance needs a
   set of replication segments to construct its forwarding instructions.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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].

3.  P2MP Policy and Replication Segment Encoding

3.1.  P2MP Policy SAFI and NLRI

   This document defines a new BGP NLRI, called the P2MP-POLICY NLRI.

   A new SAFI is defined: the SR P2MP Policy SAFI, (Codepoint tbd
   assigned by IANA).  The following is the format of the P2MP-POLICY
   NLRI:

         +-----------------------------------+
         |             route type            | 1 octet
         +-----------------------------------+
         |               length              | 1 octet
         +-----------------------------------+
         |    route type specific (variable) |
         +-----------------------------------+



Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   o  The Route type field defines the encoding of the rest of the P2MP-
      POLICY NLRI.

   o  The length field indicates the length in octets of the route type.

   o  This document defines the following route types:

      *  2MP Policy route

      *  Non-Shared Replication Segment

      *  Shared Replication Segment

   The NLRI containing the SR P2MP Policy is carried in a BGP UPDATE
   message [RFC4271] using BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760] with
   an AFI of 1 or 2 (IPv4 or IPv6) and with a SAFI of "TBD" (assigned by
   IANA from the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)
   Parameters" registry).

   All other recommendations of
   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] section SR Policy SAFI and
   NLRI, should be taken into account for P2MP policy.

3.1.1.  P2MP Policy Route

        +-----------------------------------+
        ~             Root-ID               ~ 4 or 16 octets (ipv4/ipv6)
        +-----------------------------------+
        |               Tree-ID             | 4 octets
        +-----------------------------------+
        |            Distinguisher          | 4 octets
        +-----------------------------------+

   o  Root-ID: IPv4/IPv6 address of the head-end (root) of the p2mp tree

   o  Tree-ID: a unique 4 octets identifier of the p2mp tree on the
      head- end (root)router.

   o  Distinguisher: 4-octet value uniquely identifying the policy in
      the context of <Tree-ID, Originating Router's IP> tuple.  The
      distinguisher has no semantic value and is solely used by the SR
      P2MP Policy originator to make unique (from an NLRI perspective)
      multiple occurrences of the same SR P2MP Policy.








Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


3.1.2.  Non-shared Tree Replication segment Route

   A non-shared tree is used when the label field of the PMSI Tunnel
   Attribute (PTA) is set to 0 as per [draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-sr-p2mp].
   In short this route type is used when there is no upstream assigned
   label in the PTA and aggregate of MVPNs into one P-Tunnel is not
   desired.

        +-----------------------------------+
        |             Root-ID               | 4 or 16 octets (ipv4/ipv6)
        +-----------------------------------+
        |               Tree-ID             | 4 octets
        +-----------------------------------+
        | path-instance-ID|    reserved     | 2 octets
        +-----------------------------------+

   o  Root-ID: IPv4/IPv6 address of the head-end (root) of the p2mp tree

   o  Tree-ID: a unique 4 octets identifier of the p2mp tree on the
      head- end (Root)router

   o  path-instance-id, identifies the path-instance with in the p2mp-
      policy.  Each candidate path can have one, two or more path-
      instance.  Path-instance is used for global optimization of the
      candidate path via make before break procedures.

3.1.3.  Shared Tree Replication Segment Route

   A shared tree is used when the label field of the PTA is NOT set to
   Zero.  This route type is used when there is an upstream assigned
   label in the PTA and aggregate of MVPNs into one P-Tunnel is desired.

         +-----------------------------------+
         |       replication-instance        | 4 octets
         +-----------------------------------+

   o  replication-instance: is a unique identifier of the replication
      segment on a specific node.  Each node can assign its own
      replication- id for a replication segment.

3.2.  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute

   The content of this new NLRI is encoded in the tunnel Encapsulation
   Attribute originally defined in [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] using two
   new Tunnel-Type TLV (codepoint is TBD, assigned by IANA from the "BGP
   Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry) one for P2MP
   Policy and another for Replication segment.




Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


3.2.1.  SR P2MP policy encoding

         SR P2MP Policy SAFI NLRI: <route-type p2mp-policy>
         Attributes:
            Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
               Tunnel Type: (TBD, P2MP-Policy)
                   Preference
                   Policy Name
                   leaf-list (optional)
                        remote-end point
                        remote-end point
                        ...
                   path-instance
                       active-instance-id
                       instance-id
                       instance-id
                       ...

   o  SR P2MP-POLICY NLRI and P2MP Policy route type.

   o  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in
      [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]

   o  Tunnel-Type is set to P2MP-Policy Tunnel-Type TBD (assigned by
      IANA from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types"
      registry).

   o  Preference, leaf-list, remote-end point, Policy Name, path-
      instance, instance are defined in this document.

   o  Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.

3.2.2.  replication segment encoding


















Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   replication segment SAFI NLRI: <route-type non-sahred/shared
                                   tree replication-segment>
        Attributes:
            Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
               Tunnel Type: (TBD Replication-Segment)
                   replication-sid (equivalent to binding Sid)
                   downstream-nodes
                       segment-list
                           segment
                           segment
                           ...
                       segment-list
                           segment
                           segment
                           ...
                       ...

   o  SR P2MP-POLICY NLRI and non-shared tree Replication segment route
      type or shared tree Replication segment route type.

   o  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute is defined in
      [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].

   o  Tunnel-Type is set to Replication Segment Tunnel Type, TBD
      (assigned by IANA from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
      Tunnel Types" registry).

   o  tree-identifier, replication-sid (binding sid), down-stream-nodes,
      segemtn-list and segment-list are defined in this document.

   o  Additional sub-TLVs may be defined in the future.

3.3.  P2MP Policy Sub-TLVs

   EACH P2MP policy NLRI represents a candidate path for a P2MP policy.
   A P2MP policy can have multiple candidate paths and would need
   multiple P2MP policy NRLI to download all the candidate paths.

3.3.1.  preference Sub-TLV

   As defined in preference Sub-TLV section in
   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]

3.3.2.  leaf-list Sub-TLV

   The leaf list sub-tlv identifies a set of leaves for the tree.  Each
   leaf is a remote endpoint as defined in [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] The
   leaf-list sub-tlv is optional.  The PCE can choose to download the



Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   leaf list every time it is configured or learns a new leaf.  If the
   PCE chooses to download this optional sub-tlv it should download the
   entire set of the end-points every time the endpoint list has been
   modified.  The leaf list has informational value but is optional
   since it is not required for the root to operate.  However, it must
   be noted that in some cases the end-points list can become very large
   with 100s of leaves.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |             Length            |   RESERVED    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //                           sub-TLVs                          //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: TBD

   o  Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
      fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the leaf-list sub-TLV.

   o  RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   o  sub-TLVs: One or more remote endpoint sub-TLVs.  Note the remote
      endpoint object is defined in [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]

3.3.3.  path-instance Sub-TLV

   The path instance sub-tlv contains a set of instance-ids (P2MP LSPs).
   These LSPs can be used for MBB procedure under a candidate path.
   Each LSP Instance-id has a unique id (4 octets) with in the root and
   the P2MP policy.  The PCE SHOULD always download all instance-ids to
   the node.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |             Length            |   RESERVED    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //                           Sub-TLVs                          //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: TBD

   o  Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
      fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV.




Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   o  RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt

   o  sub-TLVs: * active instance-id * one or more instance-id

3.3.3.1.  active instance-id Sub-TLV

   An instance-id is equivalent to a P2MP LSP.  The instance-id is
   unique in context of the <root node,p2mp policy> in other word is
   unique per <root node,tree-id>.  The Active instance-id is used to
   identify the P2MP LSP which should be active amongst the collection
   of LSPs.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |             Length            |   RESERVED    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           active instance-id                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: TBD.

   o  Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
      fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV.

   o  RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   o  active instant-id: The identifier of the active instance-id

3.3.3.2.  instance-id Sub-TLV

   An instance-id is equivalent to a P2MP LSP.  The instance-id is
   unique in context of the <root node, p2mp policy> in other word is
   unique per <root node,tree-id>

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |             Length            |   RESERVED    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           instance-id                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: TBD





Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   o  Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
      fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV.

   o  RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   o  instan-id: a 32 bit unique identifier.  The instance-id is unique
      with in the context of the <root node, p2mp policy>

3.4.  replication segment Sub-TLVs

3.4.1.  Replication SID (Binding SID)

   The Replication SID is form of a Binding SID as it is defined in
   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].  The definition of
   replication sid with in P2MP Policy is defined in
   [draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment].  On the transit and leaf
   node the replication SID can be used to identify the replication
   segment and the forwarding information at the node.  How ever on the
   head-end node (Root), the replication segment acts as a Binding SID
   to direct the traffic into the P2MP Tree.  It should be noted that
   two replication SIDs can be directly connected or connected via a SR
   binding SID or node/adjacency SID.

   As it was mentioned earlier the sr-te-policy binding sid sub-tlv is
   used for replication sid.  This draft defines a new flag for
   replication sid at transit and leaf node

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |S|I|R|         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   R-FLAG: is Replication SID.  Replication SID can be used to define
   the forwarding information of the transit or leaf nodes.

3.4.2.  down stream nodes Sub-TLV

   The down-stream nodes sub-tlv is the list of down stream nodes for
   this replication segment.  Two replication segments can be directly
   connected or they can be connected via a sr segment-list.  As such
   the down stream nodes sub-tlv is a list of segment-lists.  Each
   segment- list connects two replication segments via a replication sid
   or a segment list.







Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |             Length            |   RESERVED    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //                           sub-TLVs                          //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: TBD.

   o  Length: the total length (not including the Type and Length
      fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the down-stream nodes sub-
      TLV.

   o  RESERVED: 1 octet of reserved bits.  SHOULD be unset on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. o

   o  sub-TLVs: One or more segment list sub-TLVs.

3.4.3.  segment list Sub-TLV

   The segment list Sub-TLV is defined in
   [ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].  It should be noted that P2MP
   policy the optional weight Sub-TLV is not used and can optionally be
   set to 1.  The segment-list Sub-TLV contains zero or more segment
   Sub-TLVs.

3.4.4.  segment Sub-TLV

   The segment sub-Tlv is identified in
   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].  As it was mentioned
   before two replication segments can be connected directly to each
   other or via a segment list.  If they are connected directly to each
   other then the segment list can be constructed via:

   o  If the replication segment is steered via IPv4 or IPv6 nexthops or
      interface then the segment type E or G can be used with the new R
      flag set.

   o  If the replication segment is steered via a SR Unicast node or
      adjacency SID then segment type A can be used with the new R flag
      set.  Unicast SR segment types can also be configured for
      steering.

   If they are connected via SR domain then the segment list can contain
   multiple different types of SIDs, such as Node, Adjacency or Binding
   SIDe.  In this case the replication sid is at the bottom of the stack
   and of type A with the R flag set.  The SR node/adjacency or binding



Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   sids steer the packet through a SR domain until it reaches another
   replication segment. where the bottom of the stack replication sid
   identifies the forwarding information on that replication segment.

   A replication segment can use the same type of segment types defined
   in [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].  To identify a
   replication segment explicitly a new flag is defined.

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |V|A|R|         |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where R-Flag is set for a segment Sub-TLV that identifies a
   Replication Segment.  It should be noted that in a segment list only
   the last segment can have the R flag set.  Multiple replication
   segments can not be stacked on top of each other.  That said there
   can be special cases for Link Protection where a bypass tunnel is
   build via a shared replication segment.  As an example when the PCE
   downloads a bypass tunnel for link protection that is only
   constructed via shared replication segments to protect a group of
   non-shared replication segments.

4.  P2MP Policy Operation

   Inline with [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] the consumer
   of an P2MP Policy is not the BGP process.  The BGP process is used
   for distributing the P2MP policy NLRI and its route-types but its
   installation and use is outside the scope of BGP.  The detail for
   P2MP Policy can be found in [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]

4.1.  Configuration and advertisement of P2MP Policies

   The controller usually is connected to the receivers via a route
   reflector.  As such one or more route-target SHOULD be attached to
   the advertisement of P2MP Policy NLRI and its route-type.  Each route
   target identifies one head-end (root nodes) for P2MP Policy route or
   one or more head-end, transit and leaf nodes for the Non- Shared/
   Shared Tree Replication Segment route, for the advertised P2MP
   Policy.

   If no route-target is attached to the NLRI, then it is assumed that
   the originator sends the P2MP Policy update directly to the intended
   receiver.  In such case, the NO_ADVERTISE community MUST be attached
   to the P2MP Policy update.






Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


4.2.  Reception of an P2MP Policy NLRI

   When a BGP speaker receives an P2MP Policy NLRI the following rules
   apply:

   o  The P2MP Policy update MUST have either the NO_ADVERTISE community
      or at least one route-target extended community in IPv4-address
      format.  If a router supporting this document receives an P2MP
      Policy update with no route-target extended communities and no
      NO_ADVERTISE community, the update MUST NOT be processed.
      Furthermore, it SHOULD be considered to be malformed, and the
      "treat-as-withdraw" strategy of [RFC7606] is applied.

   o  If one or more route-targets are present, then at least one route-
      target MUST match one of the BGP Identifiers of the receiver in
      order for the update to be considered usable.  The BGP Identifier
      is defined in [RFC4271] as a 4 octet IPv4 address.  Therefore the
      route- target extended community MUST be of the same format.

   o  If one or more route-targets are present and no one matches any of
      the local BGP Identifiers, then, while the P2MP Policy NLRI is
      acceptable, it is not usable on the receiver node.

4.3.  Global Optimization for P2MP LSPs

   When a P2MP LSP needs to be optimized for any reason (i.e. it is
   taking on an FRR Path or new routers are added to the network) a
   global optimization is possible.  Note that optimization works per
   candidate path.  Each candidate path is capable of global
   optimization.  To do so each candidate path contains two or more
   path- instances.  Each path instance is a P2MP LSP, each P2MP LSP is
   identified via a path-instance-id (equivalent to an lsp-id
   [RFC3209]).  After calculating an optimized P2MP LSP path the PCE
   will program the candidate path with a 2nd path instance and its set
   of replication segments for this path-instance on the root, transit
   and leaf nodes.  After the optimized LSP replication segments are
   downloaded a MBB procedure is performed and the previous instance of
   the path instance is deleted and removed from head-end node and its
   corresponding replication segments from head-end, transit and leaves.

5.  IANA Consideration

   o  A new SAFI is defined: the SR P2MP Policy SAFI, (Codepoint tbd
      assigned by IANA)

   o  3 new Route type field defines the encoding of the rest of the
      P2MP- POLICY SAFI




Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


      *  P2MP Policy Route

      *  Non-Shared Replication Segment

      *  Shared Replication Segment

   o  Two new Tunnel type to be assigned by IANA

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  Acknowledgments

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              .

   [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
              "D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
              "draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"", October 2019.

   [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              .

   [draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment]
              "D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
              "draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy "", July 2020.

   [draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-sr-p2mp]
              .

   [ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
              .

   [ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              .




Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   [RFC4271]  .

   [RFC4760]  .

   [RFC6513]  .

   [RFC7606]  .

Authors' Addresses

   Hooman Bidgoli (editor)
   Nokia
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com


   Daniel Voyer
   Bell Canada
   Montreal
   Canada

   Email: daniel.yover@bell.ca


   Andrew Stone
   Nokia
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com


   Rishabh Parekh
   Cisco System
   San Jose
   USA

   Email: riparekh@cisco.com


   Serge Krier
   Cisco System, Inc.

   Email: sekrier@cisco.com





Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Advertising p2mp policies in BGP        October 2020


   Arvind Venkateswaran
   Cisco System, Inc.
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: arvvenka@cisco.com













































Bidgoli, et al.            Expires May 1, 2021                 [Page 17]