Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-05

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
BESS                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                               R. Raszuk
Expires: March 26, 2021                                     Bloomberg LP
                                                              D. Pacella
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                A. Gulko
                                                               Refinitiv
                                                      September 22, 2020


                Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
              draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-05

Abstract

   This document specifies a way that one or more centralized
   controllers can use BGP to set up a multicast distribution tree in a
   network.  In the case of labeled tree, the labels are assigned by the
   controllers either from the controllers' local label spaces, or from
   a common Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB), or from each routers
   Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) that the controllers learn.  In
   case of labeled unidirectional tree and label allocation from the
   common SRGB or from the controllers' local spaces, a single common
   label can be used for all routers on the tree to send and receive
   traffic with.  Since the controllers calculate the trees, they can
   use sophisticated algorithms and constraints to achieve traffic
   engineering.

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/.





Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   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 March 26, 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.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Resilience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Label Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       1.4.1.  Using a Common per-tree Label for All Routers . . . .   6
       1.4.2.  Upstream-assignment from Controller's Local Label
               Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.5.  Determining Root/Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.5.1.  PIM-SSM/Bidir or mLDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       1.5.2.  PIM ASM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     1.6.  Multiple Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.7.  SR-P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   2.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.1.  Enhancements to TEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.1.  Any-Encapsulation Tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.2.  Load-balancing Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.3.  Receiving MPLS Label Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.1.4.  RPF Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.1.5.  Tree Label Stack sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.1.6.  Backup Tunnel sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.2.  Context Label TLV in BGP-LS Node Attribute  . . . . . . .  14
     2.3.  SR P2MP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.3.1.  S-PMSI A-D Route for SR P2MP  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


       2.3.2.  BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy  . . . . .  15
       2.3.3.  SR Policy Tunnel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Overview

1.1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast] describes a way to use BGP as a
   replacement signaling for PIM [RFC7761] or mLDP [RFC6388].  The BGP-
   based multicast signaling described there provides a mechanism for
   setting up both (s,g)/(*,g) multicast trees (as PIM does, but
   optionally with labels) and labeled (MPLS) multicast tunnels (as mLDP
   does).  Each router on a tree performs essentially the same
   procedures as it would perform if using PIM or mLDP, but all the
   inter-router signaling is done using BGP.

   These procedures allow the routers to set up a separate tree for each
   individual multicast (x,g) flow where the 'x' could be either 's' or
   '*', but they also allow the routers to set up trees that are used
   for more than one flow.  In the latter case, the trees are often
   referred to as "multicast tunnels" or "multipoint tunnels", and
   specifically in this document they are mLDP tunnels (except that they
   are set up with BGP signaling).  While it actually does not have to
   be restricted to mLDP tunnels, mLDP FEC is conveniently borrowed to
   identify the tunnel.  In the rest of the document, the term tree and
   tunnel are used interchangeably.

   The trees/tunnels are set up using the "receiver-initiated join"
   technique of PIM/mLDP, hop by hop from downstream routers towards the
   root.  The BGP messages are either sent hop by hop between downstream
   routers and their upstream neighbors, or can be reflected by Route
   Reflectors (RRs).

   As an alternative to each hop independently determining its upstream
   router and signaling upstream towards the root (following PIM/mLDP
   model), the entire tree can be calculated by a centralized
   controller, and the signaling can be entirely done from the
   controller, using the same BGP messages as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].  For that, some additional procedures
   and optimizations are specified in this document.



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   While it is outside the scope of this document, signaling from the
   controllers could be done via other means as well, like Netconf or
   any other SDN methods.

1.2.  Resilience

   Each router could establish direct BGP sessions with one or more
   controllers, or it could establish BGP sessions with RRs who in turn
   peer with controllers.  For the same tree/tunnel, each controller may
   independently calculate the tree/tunnel and signal the routers on the
   tree/tunnel using MCAST-TREE Leaf A-D routes
   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].  How the tree/tunnel roots/leaves are
   discovered and how the calculation is done are outside the scope of
   this document.

   On each router, BGP route selection rules will lead to one
   controller's route for the tree/tunnel being selected as the active
   route and used for setting up forwarding state.  As long as all the
   routers on a tree/tunnel consistently pick the same controller's
   routes for the tree/tunnel, the setup should be consistent.  If the
   tree/tunnel is labeled, different labels will be used from different
   controllers so there is no traffic loop issue even if the routers do
   not consistently select the same controlle's routes.  In the
   unlabeled case, to ensure the consistency the selection SHOULD be
   solely based on the identifier of the controller, which could be
   carried in an Address Specific Extended Community (EC).

   Another consistency issue is when a bidirectional tree/tunnel needs
   to be re-routed.  Because this is no longer triggered hop-by-hop from
   downstream to upstream, it is possible that the upstream change
   happens before the downstream, causing traffic loop.  In the
   unlabeled case, there is no good solution (other than that the
   controller issues upstream change only after it gets acknowledgement
   from downstream).  In the labeled case, as long as a new label is
   used there should be no problem.

   Besides the traffic loop issue, there could be transient traffic loss
   before both the upstream and downstream's forwarding state are
   updated.  This could be mitigated if the upstream keep sending
   traffic on the old path (in addition to the new path) and the
   downstream keep accepting traffic on the old path (but not on the new
   path) for some time.  It is a local matter when for the downstream to
   switch to the new path - it could be data driven (e.g., after traffic
   arrives on the new path) or timer driven.

   For each tree, multiple disjoint instances could be calculated and
   signaled for live-live protection.  Different labels are used for
   different instances, so that the leaves can differentiate incoming



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   traffic on different instances.  As far as transit routers are
   concerned, the instances are just independent.  Note that the two
   instances are not expected to share common transit routers (it is
   otherwise outside the scope of this document/revision).

1.3.  Signaling

   Each router only receives Leaf A-D routes from the controllers but
   does not originate or re-advertise S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes.  The re-
   advertisement of a received route can be blocked based on the fact
   that a configured import RT matches the RT of the route, which
   indicates that this router is the target and consumer of the route
   hence it should not be re-advertised further.  The routes includes
   the forwarding information in the form of Tunnel Encapsulation
   Attributes (TEA) [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], with enhancements
   specified in this document.

   Suppose that for a particular tree, there are two downstream routers
   D1 and D2 for a particular upstream router U.  A controller C may
   send two Leaf A-D routes to U, as if the two routes were originated
   by D1 and D2 but reflected by the controller.  Alternatively, C could
   just send one route to U, with the Upstream Router's IP Address field
   set to U's IP address and the TEA specifying both the two downstreams
   and its upstream (see Section 2.1.4).  In this case, the Originating
   Router's Address field of the Leaf A-D route is set to the
   controller's address.  Note that for a TEA attached to a unicast
   NLRI, only one of the tunnels in a TEA is used for forwarding a
   particular packet, while all the tunnels in a TEA are used to reach
   multiple endpoints when it is attached to a multicast NLRI.

   Note that, in case of labeled trees, the (x,g) or mLDP FEC signaling
   is actually not needed to transit routers but only needed on tunnel
   root/leaves.  However, for consistency, the same signaling is used to
   all routers.

1.4.  Label Allocation

   In the case of labeled multicast signaled hop by hop towards the
   root, whether it's (x,g) multicast or "mLDP" tunnel, labels are
   assigned by a downstream router and advertised to its upstream router
   (from traffic direction point of view).  In the case of controller
   based signaling, routers do not originate tree join (S-PMSI/Leaf A-D)
   routes anymore, so the controllers have to assign labels on behalf of
   routers, and there are three options for label assignment:

   o  From each router's SRLB that the controller learns

   o  From the common SRGB that the controller learns



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   o  From the controller's local label space

   Assignment from each router's SRLB is no different from each router
   assigning labels from its own local label space in the hop-by-hop
   signaling case.  The assignments for a router is independent of
   assignments for another router, even for the same tree.

   Assignment from the controller's local label space is upstream-
   assigned [RFC5331].  It is used if the controller does not learn the
   common SRGB or each router's SRLB.  Assignment from the SRGB
   [RFC8402] is only meaningful if all SRGBs are the same and a single
   common label is used for all the routers on a tree in case of
   unidirectional tree/tunnel (Section 1.4.1).  Otherwise, assignment
   from SRLB is preferred.

   The choice of which of the options to use depends on many factors.
   An operator may want to use a single common label per tree for ease
   of monitoring and debugging, but that requires explicit RPF checking
   and either SRGB or upstream assigned labels, which may not be
   supported due to either the software or hardware limitations (e.g.
   label imposition/disposition limits).  In an SR network, assignment
   from the common SRGB if it's required to use a single common label
   per unidirectional tree, or otherwise assignment from SRLB is a good
   choice because it does not require support for context label spaces.

1.4.1.  Using a Common per-tree Label for All Routers

   MPLS labels only have local significance.  For an LSP that goes
   through a series of routers, each router allocates a label
   independently and it swaps the incoming label (that it advertised to
   its upstream) to an outgoing label (that it received from its
   downstream) when it forwards a labeled packet.  Even if the incoming
   and outgoing labels happen to be the same on a particular router,
   that is just incidental.

   With Segment Routing, it is becoming a common practice that all
   routers use the same SRGB so that a SID maps to the same label on all
   routers.  This makes it easier for operators to monitor and debug
   their network.  The same concept applies to multicast trees as well -
   a common per-tree label is used for a router to receive traffic from
   its upstream neighbor and replicate traffic to all its downstream
   neighbor.

   However, a common per-tree label can only be used for unidirectional
   trees.  Additionally, it requires each router to do explicit RPF
   check, so that only packets from its expected upstream neighbor are
   accepted.  Otherwise, traffic loop may form during topology changes,
   because the forwarding state update is no longer ordered.



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   Traditionally, p2mp mpls forwarding does not require explicit RPF
   check as a downstream router advertises a label only to its upstream
   router and all traffic with that incoming label is presumed to be
   from the upstream router and accepted.  When a downstream router
   switches to a different upstream router a different label will be
   advertised, so it can determine if traffic is from its expected
   upstream neighbor purely based on the label.  Now with a single
   common label used for all routers on a tree to send and receive
   traffic with, a router can no longer determine if the traffic is from
   its expected neighbor just based on that common tree label.
   Therefore, explicit RPF check is needed.  Instead of interface based
   RPF checking as in PIM case, neighbor based RPF checking is used - a
   label identifying the upstream neighbor precedes the tree label and
   the receiving router checks if that preceding neighbor label matches
   its expected upstream neighbor.  Notice that this is similar to
   what's described in Section "9.1.1 Discarding Packets from Wrong PE"
   of RFC 6513 (an egress PE discards traffic sent from a wrong ingress
   PE).  The only difference is one is used for label based forwarding
   and the other is used for (s,g) based forwarding. [note: for
   bidirectional trees, we may be able to use two labels per tree - one
   for upstream traffic and one for downstream traffic.  This needs
   further verification].

   Both the common per-tree label and the neighbor label are allocated
   either from the common SRGB or from the controller's local label
   space.  In the latter case, an additional label identifying the
   controller's label space is needed, as described in the following
   section.

1.4.2.  Upstream-assignment from Controller's Local Label Space

   In this case in the multicast packet's label stack the tree label and
   upstream neighbor label (if used in case of single common-label per
   tree) are preceded by a downstream-assigned "context label".  The
   context label identifies a context-specific label space (the
   controller's local label space), and the upstream-assigned label that
   follows it is looked up in that space.

   This specification requires that, in case of upstream-assignment from
   a controller's local label space, each router D to assign,
   corresponding to each controller C, a context label that identifies
   the upstream-assigned label space used by that controller.  This
   label, call it Lc-D, is communicated by D to C via BGP-LS [RFC 7752].

   Suppose a controller is setting up unidirectional tree T.  It assigns
   that tree the label Lt, and assigns label Lu to identify router U
   which is the upstream of router D on tree T.  C needs to tell U: "to
   send a packet on the given tree/tunnel, one of the things you have to



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   do is push Lt onto the packet's label stack, then push Lu, then push
   Lc-D onto the packet's label stack, then unicast the packet to D".
   Controller C also needs to inform router D of the correspondence
   between <Lc-D, Lu, Lt> and tree T.

   To achieve that, when C sends a Leaf A-D route, for each tunnel in
   the TEA, it includes a label stack Sub-TLV
   [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps], with the outer label being the context
   label Lc-D (received by the controller from the corresponding
   downstream), the next label being the upstream neighbor label Lu, and
   the inner label being the label Lt assigned by the controller for the
   tree.  The router receiving the route will use the label stacks to
   send traffic to its downstreams.

   For C to signal the expected label stack for D to receive traffic
   with, we overload a tunnel TLV in the TEA of the Leaf A-D route sent
   to D - if the tunnel TLV has a RPF sub-TLV (Section 2.1.4), then it
   indicates that this is actually for receiving traffic from the
   upstream.

1.5.  Determining Root/Leaves

   For the controller to calculate a tree, it needs to determine the
   root and leaves of the tree.  This may be based on provisioning
   (static or dynamically programmed), or based on BGP signaling using
   the BGP multicast messages defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast],
   as described in the following two sections.

   In both cases, the BGP updates are targeted at the controller, via an
   address specific Route Target with Global Administration Field set to
   the controller's address and the Local Administration Field set to 0,
   or a value pre-assigned to identify a VPN.

1.5.1.  PIM-SSM/Bidir or mLDP

   In this case, the PIM Last Hop Routers (LHRs) with interested
   receivers or mLDP tunnel leaves encode a Leaf A-D route with the
   Upstream Router's IP Address field set to the controller's address
   and the Originating Router's IP Address set to the address of the LHR
   or the P2MP tunnel leaf.  The encoded PIM SSM source or mLDP FEC
   provides root information and the Originating Router's IP Address
   provides leaves information.

1.5.2.  PIM ASM

   In this case, the First Hop Routers (FHRs) originate Source Active
   routes which provides root information, and the LHRs originate Leaf




Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   A-D routes, encoded as in the PIM-SSM case except that it is (*,G)
   instead of (S,G).  The Leaf A-D routes provide leaf information.

1.6.  Multiple Domains

   An end to end multicast tree may span multiple routing domains, and
   the setup of the tree in each domain may be done differently as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].  This section discusses a
   few aspects specific to controller signaling.

   Consider two adjacent domains each with its own controller in the
   following configuration where router B is an upstream node of C for a
   multicast tree:

                            |
                  domain 1  |  domain 2
                            |
                   ctrlr1   |   ctrlr2
                     /\     |     /\
                    /  \    |    /  \
                   /    \   |   /    \
                  A--...-B--|--C--...-D
                            |

   In the case of native (un-labeled) IP multicast, nothing special is
   needed.  Controller 1 signals B to send traffic out of B-C link while
   Controller 2 signals C to accept traffic on the B-C link.

   In the case of labeled IP multicast or mLDP tunnel, the controllers
   may be able to coordinate their actions such that Controller 1
   signals B to send traffic out of B-C link with label X while
   Controller 2 signals C to accept traffic with the same label X on the
   B-C link.  If the coordination is not possible, then C needs to use
   hop-by-hop BGP signaling to signal towards B, as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].

   The configuration could also be as following, where router B borders
   both domain 1 and domain 2 and is controlled by both controllers:













Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


                          |
                 domain 1 | domain 2
                          |
                   ctrlr1 | ctrlr2
                     /\   |   /\
                    /  \  |  /  \
                   /    \ | /    \
                  /      \|/      \
                 A--...---B--...---C
                          |

   As discussed in Section 1.2, when B receives signaling from both
   Controller 1 and Controller 2, only one of the routes would be
   selected as the best route and used for programming the forwarding
   state of the corresponding segment.  For B to stitch the two segments
   together, it is expected for B to know by provisioning that it is a
   border router so that B will look for the other segment (represented
   by the signaling from the other controller) and stitch the two
   together.

1.7.  SR-P2MP

   [I-D.voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] describes an architecture to construct
   a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tree to deliver Multi-point services in
   a Segment Routing domain.  An SR P2MP tree is constructed by
   stitching together a set of Replication Segments that are specified
   in [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment].  An SR Point-to-
   Multipoint (SR P2MP) Policy is used to define and instantiate a P2MP
   tree which is computed by a controller.

   An SR P2MP tree is no different from an mLDP tunnel in MPLS
   forwarding plane.  The difference is in control plane - instead of
   hop-by-hop mLDP signaling from leaves towards the root, to set up SR
   P2MP trees controllers program forwarding state (referred to as
   Replication Segments) to the root, leaves, and intermediate
   replication points using Netconf, PCEP, BGP or any other reasonable
   signaling/programming methods.

   Procedures in this document can be used for controllers to set up SR
   P2MP trees with just an additional S-PMSI route type.

   If/once the SR Replication Segment is extended to bi-redirectional,
   and SR MP2MP is introduced, the same procedures in this document
   would apply to SR MP2MP as well.







Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


2.  Specification

2.1.  Enhancements to TEA

   This document specifies two new Tunnel Types and four new sub-TLVs.
   The type codes will be assigned by IANA from the "BGP Tunnel
   Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types".

2.1.1.  Any-Encapsulation Tunnel

   When a multicast packet needs to be sent from an upstream node to a
   downstream node, it may not matter how it is sent - natively when the
   two nodes are directly connected or tunneled otherwise.  In case of
   tunneling, it may not matter what kind of tunnel is used - MPLS, GRE,
   IPinIP, or whatever.

   To support this, an "Any-Encapsulation" tunnel type is defined.  This
   tunnel MUST have a Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV and SHOULD NOT have any
   other Sub-TLVs.  The Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV specifies an IP address,
   which could be any of the following:

   o  An interface's local address - when a packet needs to sent out of
      the corresponding interface natively.  On a LAN multicast MAC
      address MUST be used.

   o  A directly connected neighbor's interface address - when a packet
      needs to unicast to the address natively.

   o  An address that is not directly connected - when a packet needs to
      be tunneled to the address (any tunnel type/instance can be used).

2.1.2.  Load-balancing Tunnel

   Consider that a multicast packet needs to be sent to a downstream
   node, which could be reached via four paths P1~P4.  If it does not
   matter which of path is taken, an "Any-Encapsulation" tunnel with the
   Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV specifying the downstream node's loopback
   address works well.  If the controller wants to specify that only
   P1~P2 should be used, then a "Load-balancing" tunnel needs to be
   used, listing P1 and P2 as member tunnels of the "Load-balancing"
   tunnel.

   A load-balancing tunnel has one "Member Tunnels" Sub-TLV defined in
   this document.  The Sub-TLV is a list of tunnels, each specifying a
   way to reach the downstream.  A packet will be sent out of one of the
   tunnels listed in the Member Tunnels Sub-TLV of the load-balancing
   tunnel.




Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


2.1.3.  Receiving MPLS Label Stack

   While [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast] uses S-PMSI A-D routes to signal
   forwarding information for MP2MP upstream traffic, when controller
   signaling is used, a single Leaf A-D route is used for both upstream
   and downstream traffic.  Since different upstream and downstream
   labels need to be used, a new "Receiving MPLS Label Stack" of type
   TBD is added as a tunnel sub-TLV in addition to the existing MPLS
   Label Stack sub-TLV.  Other than type difference, the two are the
   encoded the same way.

   The Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV is added to each downstream
   tunnel in the TEA of Leaf A-D route for an MP2MP tunnel to specify
   the forwarding information for upstream traffic from the
   corresponding downstream node.  A label stack instead of a single
   label is used because of the need for neighbor based RPF check, as
   further explained in the following section.

   The Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV is also used for downstream
   traffic from the upstream for both P2MP and MP2MP, as specified
   below.

2.1.4.  RPF Sub-TLV

   The RPF sub-TLV has a type to be allocated by IANA and a one-octet
   length.  The length is 0 currently, but if necessary in the future,
   sub-sub-TLVs could be placed in its value part.  If the RPF sub-TLV
   appears in a tunnel, it indicates that the "tunnel" is for the
   upstream node instead of a downstream node.  The tunnel contains an
   Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV for downstream traffic from the
   upstream node, and in case of MP2MP it also contains a regular MPLS
   Label Stack sub-TLV for upstream traffic to the upstream node.

   The inner most label in the Receiving MPLS Label Stack is the
   incoming label identifying the tree (for comparison the inner most
   label for a regular MPLS Label Stack is the outgoing label).  If the
   Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLVe has more than one labels, the
   second inner most label in the stack identifies the expected upstream
   neighbor and explicit RPF checking needs to be set up for the tree
   label accordingly.

2.1.5.  Tree Label Stack sub-TLV

   The MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV can be used to specify the complete
   label stack used to send traffic, with the stack including both a
   transport label (stack) and label(s) that identify the (tree,
   neighbor) to the downstream node.  There are cases where the
   controller only wants to specify the tree-identifying labels but



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   leave the transport details to the router itself.  For example, the
   router could locally determine a transport label (stack) and combine
   with the tree-identifying labels signaled from the controller to get
   the complete outgoing label stack.

   For that purpose, a new Tree Label Stack sub-TLV is defined, with a
   one-octet length field.  The value field contains a label stack with
   the same encoding as value part of the MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV, but
   the sub-TLV has a different type.  A stack is specified because it
   may take up to three labels (see Section 1.4):

   o  If different nodes use different labels (allocated from the common
      SRGB or the node's SRLB) for a (tree, neighbor) tuple, only a
      single label is in the stack.  This is similar to current mLDP hop
      by hop signaling case.

   o  If different nodes use the same tree label, then an additional
      neighbor-identifying label is needed in front of the tree label.

   o  For the previous bullet, if the neighbor-identifying label is
      allocated from the controller's local label space, then an
      additional context label is needed in front of the neighbor label.

2.1.6.  Backup Tunnel sub-TLV

   The Backup Tunnel sub-TLV is used to specify the backup paths for the
   tunnel.  The length is two-octet.  The value part encodes a one-octet
   flags field and a variable length Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute.  If
   the tunnel goes down, traffic that is normally sent out of the tunnel
   is fast rerouted to the tunnels listed in the encoded TEA.

                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet, TBD)    |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets)      |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | P | rest of 1 Octet Flags      |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Backup TEA (variable length)   |
                  +--------------------------------+

   The backup tunnels can be going to the same or different nodes
   reached by the original tunnel.

   If the tunnel carries a RPF sub-TLV and a Backup Tunnel sub-TLV, then
   both traffic arriving on the original tunnel and on the tunnels
   encoded in the Backup Tunnel sub-TLV's TEA can be accepted, if the
   Parallel (P-)bit in the flags field is set.  If the P-bit is not set,



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   then traffic arriving on the backup tunnel is accepted only if router
   has switched to receiving on the backup tunnel (this is the
   equivalent of PIM/mLDP MoFRR).

2.2.  Context Label TLV in BGP-LS Node Attribute

   For a router to signal the context label that it assigns for a
   controller (or any label allocator that assigns labels - from its
   local label space -- that will be received by this router), a new
   BGP-LS Node Attribute TLV is defined:

       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             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Context Label                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            IPv4/v6 Address of Label Space Owner               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Length field implies the type of the address.  Multiple Context
   Label TLVs may be included in a Node Attribute, one for each label
   space owner.

   An as example, a controller with address 11.11.11.11 allocates label
   200 from its own label space, and router A assigns label 100 to
   identify this controller's label space.  The router includes the
   Context Label TLV (100, 11.11.11.11) in its BGP-LS Node Attribute and
   the controller instructs router B to send traffic to router A with a
   label stack (100, 200), and router A uses label 100 to determine the
   Label FIB in which to look up label 200.

2.3.  SR P2MP Signaling

   An SR P2MP policy for an SR P2MP tree is identified by a (Root, Tree-
   id) tuple.  It has a set of leaves and set of Candidate Paths (CPs).
   The policy is instantiated on the root of the tree, with
   corresponding Replication Segments - identified by (Root, Tree-id,
   Tree-Node-id) - instantiated on the tree nodes (root, leaves, and
   intermediate replication points).  The Candidate Path is implicitly
   identified by the Route Distinguisher.

2.3.1.  S-PMSI A-D Route for SR P2MP

   With BGP signaled IP multicast trees and mLDP tunnels, the tree/
   tunnel identification is encoded in the NLRI of S-PMSI A-D routes and
   corresponding Leaf A-D routes.  The signaling sets up forwarding



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   state on each node of the tree, so the NLRI also contains the
   identification of the node in the "Upstream Router's IP Address"
   field.

   For SR P2MP, forwarding state are represented as Replication Segments
   and are signaled from controllers to tree nodes.  A Replication
   Segment is identified in a new type of S-PMSI A-D route and
   corresponding Leaf A-D route (note that the "Leaf" term here does not
   refer to tree leaves):

            +-     +-----------------------------------+
            |      |    Route Type - 4 (Leaf A-D)      |
            |      +-----------------------------------+
            |      |     Length (1 octet)              |
            | L +- +-----------------------------------+ --+
          L | E |  | Route Type - 0x83 (SR P2MP S-PMSI)|   | S
          E | A |  +-----------------------------------+   | |
          A | F |  |     Length (1 octet)              |   | P
          F |   |  +-----------------------------------+   | M
            | R |  |      RD   (8 octets)              |   | S
            | O |  +-----------------------------------+   | I
            | U |  |  Root ID (4 or 16 octets)         |   |
          N | T |  +-----------------------------------+   | N
          L | E |  |       Tree ID (4 octets)          |   | L
          R |   |  +-----------------------------------+   | R
          I | K |  |  Upstream Router's IP Address     |   | I
            | E |  +-----------------------------------+ --+
            | Y |  |  Originating Router's IP Address  |
            +-  +- +-----------------------------------+


              Leaf A-D route for SR Replication Segment

2.3.2.  BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy

   The Leaf A-D route for Replication Segments signaled to the root is
   also used to signal (parts of) the SR P2MP Policy - the policy name,
   the set of leaves (optional, for informational purpose), preference
   of the CP and other information are all encoded in a newly defined
   BGP Community Container (BCC) [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
   called SR P2MP Policy BCC.

   The SR P2MP Policy BCC has a BGP Community Container type to be
   assigned by IANA.  It is composed of a fixed 4-octet Candidate Path
   Preference value, optionally followed by TLVs.






Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                Candidate Path Preference                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                        TLVs (optional)                        |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


               BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy

   One optional TLV is to enclose the following optional Atoms TLVs that
   are already defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]:

   o  An IPv4 or IPv6 Prefix list - for the set of leaves

   o  A UTF-8 string - for the policy name

   If more information for the policy are needed, more Atoms TLVs or SR
   P2MP Policy BCC specific TLVs can be defined.

   The root receives one Leaf A-D route for each Candidate Path of the
   policy.  Only one of the routes need to, though more than one MAY
   include the above listed optional Atom TLVs in the SR P2MP Policy
   BCC.

2.3.3.  SR Policy Tunnel Type

   The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA) attached to Leaf A-D routes
   encodes all replication branch information.  For example, if an SR
   explicit path is to be used to reach a particular downstream node,
   the TEA will include a tunnel that lists the entire label stack for
   that SR path, plus the label that identifies the SR P2MP tree to the
   downstream node.

   That SR path may have been installed on the node as a unicast SR
   policy with a corresponding Binding SID.  In stead of listing the
   entire label stack in an MPLS tunnel in the TEA, a different tunnel,
   SR Policy Tunnel [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], can be
   used as an alternative.  The tunnel includes a Binding SID sub-TLV,
   an optional endpoint sub-TLV that identifies the downstream node, and
   an optional one-segment segment list that identifies to the
   downstream node the SR P2MP tree.  When a node receives the Leaf A-D
   route with the TEA that contains an SR Policy Tunnel without a RPF
   sub-TLV, the Binding SID is used to locate corresponding outgoing
   segment lists used to reach the downstream node; the tree-identifying



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   segment from the optional one-segment segment list is added to to
   outgoing segment lists mapped from the binding SID to form the entire
   segment list used to send traffic to downstream node.

   Note that, the SR Policy Tunnel is initially defined to instantiate
   an SR policy.  For that use case it provides information associated
   with the policy, e.g., Binding SID, preference, and segment lists.
   The receiving node installs that policy and establishes the mapping
   from the Binding SID to the outgoing segments.  The use of SR Policy
   Tunnel in this document is to refer to a pre-installed SR policy so
   the preference and segment lists are not used.

   If a tunnel in the TEA carries a RPF sub-TLV, it is for the upstream
   node.  The tunnel may be an MPLS tunnel in case of SR MPLS, and the
   Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV specifies the incoming label stack
   that identifies the tree and optionally the upstream neighbor.
   Alternatively, for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 an SR Policy Tunnel with the
   RPF sub-TLV can be used, in which the Binding SID sub-TLV is the SID
   for the tree.

   If the node is the root and a Binding SID is allocated by the
   controller, the Binding SID is signaled to the root in a TEA tunnel
   with a RPF sub-TLV as above but without a destination sub-TLV.

3.  Procedures

   Details to be added.  The general idea is described in the
   introduction section.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security risks.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes the following IANA requests:

   o  Assign "Any-Encapsulation" and "Load-balancing" tunnel types from
      the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry

   o  Assign "Member Tunnels", "Receiving MPLS Label Stack", "Tree Label
      Stack" and "RPF" sub-TLV types from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
      Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry.  The "Member Tunnels" sub-TLV has a
      two-octet value length (so the type should be in the 128-255
      range), while the "Receiving MPLS Label Stack", "Tree Label" and
      "RPF" sub-TLV has a one-octet value length.





Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   o  Assign "Context Label TLV" type from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor,
      Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry.

   o  Assign "S-PMSI A-D Route for SR P2MP" route type from the "BGP
      MCAST-TREE Route Types" registry, with a suggested value of 0x83.

   o  Assign a new BGP Community Container type "SR P2MP Policy", and to
      create an "SR P2MP Policy Community Container TLV Registry", with
      an initial entry for "TLV for Atoms".

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors Eric Rosen for his questions, suggestions, and help
   finding solutions to some issues like the neighbor based explicit RPF
   checking.  The authors also thank Lenny Giuliano, Sanoj Vivekanandan
   and IJsbrand Wijnands for their review and comments.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast]
              Zhang, Z., Giuliano, L., Patel, K., Wijnands, I., mishra,
              m., and A. Gulko, "BGP Based Multicast", draft-ietf-bess-
              bgp-multicast-02 (work in progress), June 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
              Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
              Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-
              te-policy-09 (work in progress), May 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
              Patel, K., Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder, "The BGP
              Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-
              encaps-17 (work in progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
              Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S.,
              and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", draft-
              ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 (work in progress), July
              2018.

   [I-D.voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
              Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
              Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
              draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-02 (work in progress), July
              2020.



Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment]
              Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
              Zhang, "SR Replication Segment for Multi-point Service
              Delivery", draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-04
              (work in progress), July 2020.

   [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>.

   [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>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net







Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller            September 2020


   Robert Raszuk
   Bloomberg LP

   EMail: robert@raszuk.net


   Dante Pacella
   Verizon

   EMail: dante.j.pacella@verizon.com


   Arkadiy Gulko
   Refinitiv

   EMail: arkadiy.gulko@refinitiv.com



































Zhang, et al.            Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 20]