Internet Engineering Task Force IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen, Ed.
Expires: December 7, 2017 Juniper Networks, Inc.
A. Dolganow
Nokia
J. Tantsura
Individual
S. Aldrin
Google, Inc.
I. Meilik
Broadcom
June 5, 2017
Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS
Networks
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast domain",
without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state
or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol. When a multicast
data packet enters the domain, the ingress router determines the set
of egress routers to which the packet needs to be sent. The ingress
router then encapsulates the packet in a BIER header. The BIER
header contains a bitstring in which each bit represents exactly one
egress router in the domain; to forward the packet to a given set of
egress routers, the bits corresponding to those routers are set in
the BIER header. The details of the encapsulation depend on the type
of network used to realize the multicast domain. This document
specifies a BIER encapsulation that can be used in an MPLS network,
or with slight differences, in a non-MPLS network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BIER Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. In MPLS Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Encapsulation Initial Four Octets . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1.1. The BIER-MPLS Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1.2. Other Fields of the Initial Four Octets . . . . . 7
2.1.2. Remainder of Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3. Further Encapsulating a BIER Packet . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. In Non-MPLS Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1. Encapsulation Initial Four Octets . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.1. The BIFT-id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.2. Other Fields of the Initial Four Octets . . . . . 11
2.2.2. Remainder of Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3. Further Encapsulating a BIER Packet . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation . . . . . . . 14
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
1. Introduction
[BIER_ARCH] describes a new architecture for the forwarding of
multicast data packets. Known as "Bit Index Explicit Replication"
(BIER), that architecture provides optimal forwarding of multicast
data packets through a "multicast domain". It does so without
requiring any explicit tree-building protocol and without requiring
intermediate nodes to maintain any per-flow state.
This document will use terminology defined in [BIER_ARCH].
A router that supports BIER is known as a "Bit-Forwarding Router"
(BFR). A "BIER domain" is a connected set of Bit-Forwarding Routers
(BFRs), each of which has been assigned a BFR-prefix. A BFR-prefix
is a routable IP address of a BFR, and is used by BIER to identify a
BFR. A packet enters a BIER domain at an ingress BFR (BFIR), and
leaves the BIER domain at one or more egress BFRs (BFERs). As
specified in [BIER_ARCH], each BFR of a given BIER domain is
provisioned to be in one or more "sub-domains" (SDs). In the context
of a given SD, each BFIR and BFER must have a BFR-id that is unique
within that SD. A BFR-id is just a number in the range [1,65535]
that, relative to a BIER SD, identifies a BFR uniquely.
As described in [BIER_ARCH], BIER requires that multicast data
packets be encapsulated with a header that provides the information
needed to support the BIER forwarding procedures. This information
includes the SD to which the packet has been assigned, a Set-Id (SI),
a BitString, and a BitStringLength (BSL) Together these values are
used to identify the set of BFERs to which the packet must be
delivered.
This document defines an encapsulation that can be used in either
MPLS networks or non-MPLS networks. However, the construction and
processing of the BIER header is slightly different in MPLS networks
than in non-MPLS networks. In particular:
o The handling of certain fields in the encapsulation header (the
"BIER header") is different depending upon whether the underlying
network is an MPLS network or not.
o In an MPLS network, the first four octets of a BIER header is also
the bottom entry (the last four octets) of an MPLS label stack.
The MPLS-based encapsulation is explained in detail in Section 2.1.
The differences between the MPLS-based encapsulation and the non-MPLS
encapsulation is explained in Section 2.2.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Following the BIER header is the "payload". The payload may be an
IPv4 packet, an IPv6 packet, an ethernet frame, an MPLS packet, or an
OAM packet. (The use of BIER with other payload types is also
possible, but is not further discussed in this document.) The BIER
header contains information (the Next Protocol field) identifying the
type of the payload.
If the payload is an MPLS packet, then an MPLS label stack
immediately follows the BIER header. The top label of this MPLS
label stack may be either a downstream-assigned label [RFC3032] or an
upstream-assigned label [RFC5331].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. BIER Header
The BIER header is shown in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BIFT-id | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Nibble | Ver | BSL | Entropy |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OAM|Rsv| DSCP | Proto | BFIR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BitString (first 32 bits) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BitString (last 32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: BIER Header
The BIFT-id represents a particular Bit Index Forwarding
Table (BIFT); see Section 6.4 of [BIER_ARCH]. As explained in
[BIER_ARCH], each BIFT corresponds to a particular combination of SD,
BSL, and SI.
Section 2.1 explains how the fields of the encapsulation header are
used in MPLS networks. For those fields that are used differently in
non-MPLS networks, Section 2.2 explains the differences.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
2.1. In MPLS Networks
2.1.1. Encapsulation Initial Four Octets
2.1.1.1. The BIER-MPLS Label
As stated in [BIER_ARCH], when a BIER domain is also an IGP domain,
IGP extensions can be used by each BFR to advertise the BFR-id and
BFR-prefix. The extensions for OSPF are given in
[OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]. The extensions for ISIS are given in
[ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].
When a particular BIER domain is both an IGP domain and an MPLS
network, we assume that each BFR will also use IGP extensions to
advertise a set of one or more "BIER-MPLS" labels. When the domain
contains a single SD, a given BFR needs to advertise one such label
for each combination of SI and BSL. If the domain contains multiple
SDs, a BFR needs to advertise one such label per SI per BSL for each
SD.
In some environments, the only routing protocol in a BIER domain
might be BGP; in this case, the BGP extensions described in
[BGP_BIER_EXTENSIONS] can be used to advertise the necessary set of
BIER-MPLS labels.
The BIER-MPLS labels are locally significant (i.e., unique only to
the BFR that advertises them) downstream-assigned MPLS labels.
Penultimate hop popping ([RFC3031]) MUST NOT be applied to a BIER-
MPLS label.
Suppose for example that there is a single SD (the default SD), that
the network is using a BSL of 256, and that all BFERs in the SD have
BFR-ids in the range [1,512]. Since each BIER BitString is 256 bits
long, this requires the use of two SIs: SI=0 and SI=1. So each BFR
will advertise, via IGP extensions, two MPLS labels for BIER: one
corresponding to SI=0 and one corresponding to SI=1. The
advertisements of these labels will also bind each label to the
default SD and to the BSL 256.
As another example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains 2 SDs
(SD 0 and SD 1), supports 2 BSLs (256 and 512), and contains 1024
BFRs. A BFR that is provisioned for both SDs, and that supports both
BSLs, would have to advertise the following set of BIER-MPLS labels:
L1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.
L2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
L3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.
L4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.
L5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.
L6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.
L7: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 0.
L8: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 1.
L9: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 2.
L10: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 3.
L11: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 0.
L12: corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 1.
The above example should not be taken as implying that the BFRs need
to advertise 12 individual labels. For instance, instead of
advertising a label for <SD 1, BSL 512, SI 0> and a label for <SD 1,
BSL 512, SI 1>, a BFR could advertise a contiguous range of labels
(in this case, a range containing exactly two labels) corresponding
to <SD 1, BSL 512>. The first label in the range could correspond to
SI 0, and the second to SI 1. The precise mechanism for generating
and forming the advertisements is outside the scope of this document.
See [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS] and [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].
The BIER-MPLS label corresponding to a particular combination of SD,
SI, and BSL is interpreted as representing the BIFT that corresponds
to that same combination of SD, SI, and BSL. That is, the BIER-MPLS
label performs the function of a BIFT-id. This label value is
carried in the BIFT-id field of the BIER encapsulation.
It is crucial to understand that in an MPLS network, the first four
octets of the BIER encapsulation header are also the last four octets
of the MPLS header. Therefore, any prior MPLS label stack entries
MUST have the S bit (see [RFC3032]) clear (i.e., the S bit must be
0).
When a BFR receives an MPLS packet, and the next label to be
processed is one of its BIER-MPLS labels, it will assume that the
remainder of the BIER header (see Section 2.1.2) immediately follows
the stack.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Note that in practice, labels only have to be assigned if they are
going to be used. If a particular BIER domain supports BSLs 256 and
512, but some SD, say SD 1, only uses BSL 256, then it is not
necessary to assign labels that correspond to the combination of SD 1
and BSL 512.
2.1.1.2. Other Fields of the Initial Four Octets
S bit:
When a BIER packet is traveling through an MPLS network, the high-
order 20 bits of the initial four octets of the BIER encapsulation
contain an MPLS label in the BIFT-id field. These four octets are
treated as the final entry in the packet's MPLS label stack.
Hence the S bit (see [RFC3032]) MUST be set to 1. If there are
any MPLS label stack entries immediately preceding the BIER
encapsulation, the S bit of those label stack entries MUST be set
to 0.
TC:
The "Traffic Class" field ([RFC5462]) has its usual meaning in an
MPLS label stack entry.
TTL:
This is the usual MPLS "Time to Live" field ([RFC3032]). When a
BIER packet is received, its "incoming TTL" (see below) is taken
from this TTL field.
The BFR MUST perform the MPLS TTL processing correctly. If the
packet is forwarded to one or more BFR adjacencies, the BIER-MPLS
label carried by the forwarded packet MUST have a TTL field whose
value is one less than that of the incoming TTL.
Of course, if the incoming TTL is 1, the packet MUST be treated as
a packet whose TTL has been exceeded. The packet MUST NOT be
forwarded, but it MAY be passed to other layers for processing
(e.g., to cause an ICMP message to be generated, and/or to invoke
BIER-specific traceroute procedures, and/or to invoke other OAM
procedures.)
2.1.2. Remainder of Encapsulation
Nibble:
This field is set to the binary value 0101; this ensures that the
MPLS ECMP logic will not confuse the remainder of the BIER header
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
with an IP header or with the header of a pseudowire packet. In
an MPLS network, if a BFR receives a BIER packet with any other
value in the first nibble after the label stack, it SHOULD discard
the packet and log an error.
Ver:
This 4-bit field identifies the version of the BIER header. This
document specifies version 0 of the BIER header. If a packet is
received by a particular BFR, and that BFR does not support the
specified version of the BIER header, the BFR MUST discard the
packet and log an error.
The value 0xF is reserved for experimental use; that value MUST
NOT be assigned by any future IETF document or by IANA.
BSL:
This 4-bit field encodes the length in bits of the BitString.
Note: When parsing the BIER header, a BFR MUST infer the length of
the BitString from the BIFT-id, and MUST NOT infer it from the
value of this field. This field is present only to enable off-
line tools (such as LAN analyzers) to parse the BIER header.
If k is the length of the BitString, the value of this field is
log2(k)-5. However, only certain values are supported:
1: 64 bits
2: 128 bits
3: 256 bits
4: 512 bits
5: 1024 bits
6: 2048 bits
7: 4096 bits
The value of this field MUST NOT be set to any value other than
those listed above. A received packet containing another value in
this field SHOULD be discarded, and an error logged. If the value
in this field is other than what is expected based on the BIER-
MPLS label, the packet SHOULD be discarded and an error logged.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Entropy:
This 20-bit field specifies an "entropy" value that can be used
for load balancing purposes. The BIER forwarding process may do
equal cost load balancing, in which case the load balancing
procedure MUST choose the same path for any two packets have the
same entropy value.
If a BFIR is encapsulating (as the payload) MPLS packets that have
entropy labels, the BFIR MUST ensure that if two such packets have
the same MPLS entropy label, they also have the same value of the
BIER entropy field.
OAM:
These two bits are used for the passive performance measurement
marking method described in [PPM].
Rsv:
These 2 bits are currently unused. They SHOULD be set to zero
upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception.
DSCP:
By default, this 6-bit field is not used in MPLS networks. The
default behavior is that all 6 bits SHOULD be set to zero upon
transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception.
Non-default use of this field in MPLS networks is outside the
scope of this document.
Proto:
This 6-bit "Next Protocol" field identifies the type of the
payload. (The "payload" is the packet or frame immediately
following the BIER header.) IANA has been requested to create a
registry of "BIER Next Protocol Identifiers". This field is to be
populated with the appropriate entry from that registry.
If a BFER receives a BIER packet, but does not recognize (or does
not support) the value of the Next Protocol field, the BFER SHOULD
discard the packet and log an error.
BFIR-id:
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
By default, this is the BFR-id of the BFIR, in the SD to which the
packet has been assigned. The BFR-id is encoded in the 16-bit
field as an unsigned integer in the range [1,65535].
Certain applications may require that the BFIR-id field contain
the BFR-id of a BFR other than the BFIR. However, that usage of
the BFIR-id field is outside the scope of the current document.
BitString:
The BitString that, together with the packet's SI and SD,
identifies the destination BFERs for this packet. Note that the
SI and SD for the packet are not carried explicitly in the BIER
header, as a particular BIFT-id always corresponds to a particular
SI and SD.
2.1.3. Further Encapsulating a BIER Packet
Sending a BIER packet from one BFR to another may require the packet
to be further encapsulated. For example: in some scenarios it may be
necessary to encapsulate a BIER packet in an ethernet frame; in other
scenarios it may be necessary to encapsulate a BIER packet in in a
UDP packet. In such cases, the BIER packet itself is the payload of
an "outer" encapsulation.
In this document, we assume that the frame or packet carrying a BIER
packet as its payload is a unicast frame or packet. That is,
although a BIER packet is a multicast packet, we assume that the
frame or packet carrying the BIER packet as its payload is unicast
from one BFR to the next.
Generally the outer encapsulation has a codepoint identifying the
"next protocol". The outer encapsulation's "next protocol" codepoint
for MPLS MUST be used. If a particular outer encapsulation has a
codepoint for "MPLS with Downstream-Assigned Label" and a different
codepoint for "MPLS with Upstream-Assigned Label", the codepoint for
"MPLS with Downstream-Assigned Label" MUST be used.
For example, if a BIER packet is encapsulated in an ethernet frame,
the ethertype MUST be 0x8847 ([RFC5332]), which is the ethertype for
a unicast ethernet frame that carries an MPLS packet whose label
stack beings with a downstream-assigned label.
In the special case where the outer encapsulation is MPLS, the outer
encapsulation has no "next protocol" codepoint. All that is needed
to encapsulate the BIER packet is to push more MPLS label stack
entries (with S bit clear) on the BIER packet's label stack.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
If two BIER packets have the same value in the entropy field of their
respective BIER headers, and if both are placed in an outer
encapsulation, it is desirable for the outer encapsulation to
preserve the fact that the two packets have the same entropy. If the
outer encapsulation is MPLS, and if the MPLS entropy label
([RFC6790]) is in use in a given deployment, one way to do this is to
copy the value of the BIER header entropy field into an MPLS entropy
label.
2.2. In Non-MPLS Networks
2.2.1. Encapsulation Initial Four Octets
2.2.1.1. The BIFT-id
In non-MPLS networks, a BIFT-id MUST be assigned for every
combination of <SD, SI, BSL> that is to be used in that network. The
correspondence between a BIFT-id and a particular <SD, SI, BSL>
triple is unique throughout the BIER domain, and is known to all the
BFRs in the BIER domain.
The means by which the BIFT-ids are assigned, and the means by which
these assignments are made known to the BFRs, are outside the scope
of this document.
In an MPLS network, since the BIFT-id is an MPLS label, its value may
be changed as a BIER packet goes from BFR to BFR. In a non-MPLS
network, since the BIFT-id is domain-wide unique, it is not expected
to change as a BIER packet travels.
2.2.1.2. Other Fields of the Initial Four Octets
S bit:
The S bit has no significance in a non-MPLS network. It SHOULD be
set to 1 upon transmission, but it MUST be ignored upon reception.
TC:
By default, the TC field has no significance in a non-MPLS
network. The default behavior is that this field SHOULD be set to
the binary value 000 upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon
reception.
Non-default use of this field in non-MPLS networks is outside the
scope of this document.
TTL:
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
This is the BIER "Time to Live" field. Its purpose is to prevent
BIER packets from looping indefinitely in the event of improper
operation of the control plane. When a BIER packet is received,
its "incoming TTL" (see below) is taken from this TTL field.
If the incoming TTL is 0 or 1, the packet MUST be treated as a
packet whose TTL has been exceeded. The packet MUST NOT be
forwarded, but it MAY be passed to other layers for processing
(e.g., to cause an ICMP message to be generated, and/or to invoke
BIER-specific traceroute procedures, and/or to invoke other OAM
procedures.)
If the packet is forwarded to one or more BFR adjacencies, the TTL
field of the packet MUST be set to a value that is one less than
the value of the incoming TTL.
2.2.2. Remainder of Encapsulation
Nibble:
This field SHOULD be set to 0000 upon transmission, but MUST be
ignored upon reception.
Ver:
See Section 2.1.2.
BSL:
See Section 2.1.2.
Entropy:
See Section 2.1.2.
OAM:
See Section 2.1.2.
Rsv:
See Section 2.1.2.
DSCP:
This 6-bit field MAY be used to hold a Differentiated Services
Codepoint ([RFC2474]). The significance of this field is outside
the scope of this document.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Proto:
See Section 2.1.2.
BFIR-id:
See Section 2.1.2.
BitString:
See Section 2.1.2.
2.2.3. Further Encapsulating a BIER Packet
Sending a BIER packet from one BFR to another may require the packet
to be further encapsulated. For example: in some scenarios it may be
necessary to encapsulate a BIER packet in an ethernet frame; in other
scenarios it may be necessary to encapsulate a BIER packet in in a
UDP packet. In such cases, the BIER packet itself is the payload of
an "outer" encapsulation.
In this document, we assume that the frame or packet carrying a BIER
packet as its payload is a unicast frame or packet. That is,
although a BIER packet is a multicast packet, we assume that the
frame or packet carrying the BIER packet as its payload is unicast
from one BFR to the next.
Generally the outer encapsulation has a codepoint identifying the
"next protocol". This codepoint MUST be set to a value that means
"Non-MPLS BIER". In particular, a codepoint that means "MPLS" (with
either upstream-assigned or downstream-assigned labels) MUST NOT be
used.
By requiring the use of a distinct codepoint for "non-MPLS BIER", we
allow for deployment scenarios where non-MPLS BIER can coexist with
non-BIER MPLS. The BIFT-id values used by the former will not
conflict with MPLS label values used by the latter.
As an example, if a non-MPLS BIER packet is encapsulated in an
ethernet header, the ethertype MUST NOT be 0x8847 or 0x8848
([RFC5332]). Rather, a new ethertype would have to be assigned and
used. Specification of the layer 2 codepoints to be used for the
non-MPLS BIER encapsulation is outside the scope of this document.
In the special case where the outer encapsulation is MPLS, the outer
encapsulation has no "next protocol" codepoint. If it is necessary
to use MPLS as an outer encapsulation for BIER packets, it is
RECOMMENDED to use the MPLS encapsulation for BIER. Procedures for
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
encapsulating a non-MPLS BIER packet in MPLS are outside the scope of
this document.
If two BIER packets have the same value in the entropy field of their
respective BIER headers, and if both are placed in an outer
encapsulation, it is desirable for the outer encapsulation to
preserve the fact that the two packets have the same entropy.
3. Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation
When a BFIR receives a multicast packet from outside the BIER domain,
the BFIR carries out the following procedure:
1. By consulting the "multicast flow overlay" [BIER_ARCH], it
determines the value of the "Proto" field.
2. By consulting the multicast flow overlay, it determines the set
of BFERs that must receive the packet.
3. If more than one SD is supported, the BFIR assigns the packet to
a particular SD. Procedures for determining the SD to which a
particular packet should be assigned are outside the scope of
this document.
4. The BFIR looks up the BFR-id, in the given SD, of each of the
BFERs.
5. The BFIR converts each such BFR-id into (SI, BitString) format,
as described in [BIER_ARCH].
6. All such BFR-ids that have the same SI can be encoded into the
same BitString. Details of this encoding can be found in
[BIER_ARCH]. For each distinct SI that occurs in the list of the
packet's destination BFERs:
a. The BFIR makes a copy of the multicast data packet, and
encapsulates the copy in a BIER header (see Section 2). The
BIER header contains the BitString that represents all the
destination BFERs whose BFR-ids (in the given SD) correspond
to the given SI. It also contains the BFIR's BFIR-id in the
SD to which the packet has been assigned.
N.B.: For certain applications, it may be necessary for the
BFIR-id field to contain the BFR-id of a BFR other than the
BFIR that is creating the header. Such uses are outside the
scope of this document.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
b. The BFIR then applies to that copy the forwarding procedure
of [BIER_ARCH]. This may result in one or more copies of
the packet (possibly with a modified BitString) being
transmitted to a neighboring BFR.
c. If the non-MPLS BIER encapsulation is being used, the BIFT-
id field is set to the BIFT-id that corresponds to the
packet's <SD, SI, BSL>. The TTL is set according to policy.
If the MPLS BIER encapsulation is being used, the BFIR finds
the BIER-MPLS label that was advertised by the neighbor as
corresponding to the given <SD, SI, BSL>. An MPLS label
stack is then prepended to the packet. This label stack
[RFC3032] will contain one label, the aforementioned BIER-
MPLS label. The "S" bit MUST be set, indicating the end of
the MPLS label stack. The TTL field of this label stack
entry is set according to policy.
d. The packet may then be transmitted to the neighboring BFR.
(In an MPLS network, this may result in additional MPLS
labels being pushed on the stack. For example, if an RSVP-
TE tunnel is used to transmit packets to the neighbor, a
label representing that tunnel would be pushed onto the
stack.)
When an intermediate BFR is processing a received MPLS packet, and
one of the BFR's own BIER-MPLS labels rises to the top of the label
stack, the BFR infers the BSL from the label. The SI and SD are also
implicitly identified by the label. The BFR then follows the
forwarding procedures of [BIER_ARCH]. If it forwards a copy of the
packet to a neighboring BFR, it first swaps the label at the top of
the label stack with the BIER-MPLS label, advertised by that
neighbor, that corresponds to the same <SD, SI, BSL>. Note that when
this swap operation is done, the TTL field of the BIER-MPLS label of
the outgoing packet MUST be one less than the "incoming TTL" of the
packet, as defined in Section 2.1.1.1.
When an intermediate BFR is processing a received non-MPLS BIER
packet, the BFR infers the BSL from the BIFT-id. The SI and SD are
also implicitly identified by the BIFT-id. The BFR then follows the
forwarding procedures of [BIER_ARCH].
Note that if the BIER payload is an MPLS packet, the BIER header is
followed by an MPLS label stack. This stack is separate from any
MPLS stack that may precede the BIER header. For an example of an
application where it is useful to carry an MPLS packet as the BIER
payload, see [BIER_MVPN].
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to set up a registry called "BIER Next Protocol
Identifiers". The registration policy for this registry is
"Standards Action" ([RFC5226] and [RFC7120]).
The initial values in the BIER Next Protocol Identifiers registry
are:
0: Reserved.
1: MPLS packet with downstream-assigned label at top of stack.
2: MPLS packet with upstream-assigned label at top of stack (see
[RFC5331]). If this value of the Proto field is used, the BFR-id
of the BFIR must be placed in the BFIR-id field. The BFIR-id
provides the "context" in which the upstream-assigned label is
interpreted.
3: Ethernet frame.
4: IPv4 packet.
5: OAM packet [BIER-OAM].
6: IPv6 packet.
64: Reserved.
5. Security Considerations
Insofar as this document makes use of MPLS, it inherits any security
considerations that apply to the use of the MPLS data plane.
Insofar as this document makes use of IGP extensions, it inherits any
security considerations that apply to the IGP.
The security considerations of [BIER_ARCH] also apply.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Rajiv Asati, John Bettink, Nagendra Kumar,
Christian Martin, Neale Ranns, Greg Shepherd, Ramji Vaithianathan,
Xiaohu Xu, and Jeffrey Zhang for their ideas and contributions to
this work.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
7. Contributor Addresses
Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Mach (Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Arkadiy Gulko
Thomson Reuters
195 Broadway
New York NY 10007
United States
Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Martin Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226
Muenster 48153
Germany
Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
Uwe Joorde
Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226
Muenster D-48153
Germany
Email: Uwe.Joorde@telekom.de
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, California 94089
United States
Email: prz@juniper.net
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BIER_ARCH]
Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T.,
and S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-architecture-
05, October 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Ed., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter,
"MPLS Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5332, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5332>.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
8.2. Informative References
[BGP_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
Xu, X., Chen, M., Patel, K., Wijnands, I., and A.
Przygienda, "BGP Extensions for BIER", internet-draft
draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-02.txt, June 2017.
[BIER-OAM]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", internet-draft
draft-ietf-bier-ping-01.txt, January 2017.
[BIER_MVPN]
Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Wijnands, IJ., Aldrin, S.,
Dolganow, A., and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using
Bier", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05, January
2017.
[ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. Zhang,
"BIER Support via ISIS", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-
isis-extensions-04.txt, March 2017.
[OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, Z., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
for Bit Index Explicit Replication", internet-draft draft-
ietf-ospf-bier-extensions-05.txt, March 2017.
[PPM] Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T.
Mizrahi, "IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework",
draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-06 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation June 2017
Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: ice@cisco.com
Eric C. Rosen (editor)
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, Massachusetts 01886
United States
Email: erosen@juniper.net
Andrew Dolganow
Nokia
600 March Rd.
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6
Canada
Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Sam K Aldrin
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California
United States
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Israel Meilik
Broadcom
Email: israel@broadcom.com
Wijnands, et al. Expires December 7, 2017 [Page 21]
