NVO3 working group                                          A. Ghanwani
Internet Draft                                                     Dell
Intended status: Informational                                L. Dunbar
Expires: November 8, 2017                                    M. McBride
                                                              V. Bannai
                                                            R. Krishnan

                                                      February 16, 2017

       A Framework for Multicast in Network Virtualization Overlays

Status of this Memo

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

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2016.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

Copyright Notice

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

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


   This document discusses a framework of supporting multicast traffic
   in a network that uses Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3). Both
   infrastructure multicast and application-specific multicast are
   discussed. It describes the various mechanisms that can be used for
   delivering such traffic as well as the data plane and control plane
   considerations for each of the mechanisms.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Infrastructure multicast..................................3
      1.2. Application-specific multicast............................4
      1.3. Terminology clarification.................................4
   2. Acronyms.......................................................4
   3. Multicast mechanisms in networks that use NVO3.................5
      3.1. No multicast support......................................6
      3.2. Replication at the source NVE.............................6
      3.3. Replication at a multicast service node...................9
      3.4. IP multicast in the underlay.............................10
      3.5. Other schemes............................................12
   4. Simultaneous use of more than one mechanism...................12
   5. Other issues..................................................12
      5.1. Multicast-agnostic NVEs..................................12
      5.2. Multicast membership management for DC with VMs..........13
   6. Summary.......................................................14
   7. Security Considerations.......................................14
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................14

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   9. References....................................................14
      9.1. Normative References.....................................14
      9.2. Informative References...................................15
   10. Acknowledgments..............................................16

1. Introduction

   Network virtualization using Overlays over Layer 3 (NVO3) is a
   technology that is used to address issues that arise in building
   large, multitenant data centers that make extensive use of server
   virtualization [RFC7364].

   This document provides a framework for supporting multicast traffic,
   in a network that uses Network Virtualization using Overlays over
   Layer 3 (NVO3).  Both infrastructure multicast and application-
   specific multicast are considered.  It describes the various
   mechanisms and considerations that can be used for delivering such
   traffic in networks that use NVO3.

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology as defined
   in the NVO3 Framework document [RFC7365] and NVO3 Architecture
   document [NVO3-ARCH].

 1.1. Infrastructure multicast

   Infrastructure multicast is a capability needed by networking
   services, such as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), Neighbor
   Discovery (ND), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP),
   multicast Domain Name Server (mDNS), etc.. RFC3819 Section 5 and 6
   have detailed description for some of the infrastructure multicast
   [RFC 3819].  It is possible to provide solutions for these that do
   not involve multicast in the underlay network.  In the case of
   ARP/ND, a network virtualization authority (NVA) can be used for
   distributing the mappings of IP address to MAC address to all
   network virtualization edges (NVEs).  The NVEs can then trap ARP
   Request/ND Neighbor Solicitation messages from the TSs that are
   attached to it and respond to them, thereby eliminating the need to
   for broadcast/multicast of such messages.  In the case of DHCP, the
   NVE can be configured to forward these messages using a helper

   Of course it is possible to support all of these infrastructure
   multicast protocols natively if the underlay provides multicast
   transport.  However, even in the presence of multicast transport, it
   may be beneficial to use the optimizations mentioned above to reduce
   the amount of such traffic in the network.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

 1.2. Application-specific multicast

   Application-specific multicast traffic are originated and consumed
   by user applications. The Application-specific multicast, which can
   be either Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) or Any-Source Multicast
   (ASM)[RFC 3569], has the following characteristics:

     1. Receiver hosts are expected to subscribe to multicast content
        using protocols such as IGMP [RFC3376] (IPv4) or MLD (IPv6).
        Multicast sources and listeners participant in these protocols
        using addresses that are in the Tenant System address domain.

     2. The list of multicast listeners for each multicast group is not
        known in advance.  Therefore, it may not be possible for an NVA
        to get the list of participants for each multicast group ahead
        of time.

 1.3. Terminology clarification

   In this document, the terms host, tenant system (TS) and virtual
   machine (VM) are used interchangeably to represent an end station
   that originates or consumes data packets.

2. Acronyms

   ASM:  Any-Source Multicast

   IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol

   LISP: Locator/ID Separation Protocol

   MSN: Multicast Service Node

   RLOC: Routing Locator

   NVA: Network Virtualization Authority

   NVE: Network Virtualization Edge

   NVGRE: Network Virtualization using GRE

   PIM:  Protocol-Independent Multicast

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   SSM: Source-Specific Multicast

   TS: Tenant system

   VM: Virtual Machine

   VN: Virtual Network

   VTEP: VxLAN Tunnel End Points

   VXLAN: Virtual eXtensible LAN

3. Multicast mechanisms in networks that use NVO3

   In NVO3 environments, traffic between NVEs is transported using an
   encapsulation such as Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)
   [RFC7348,VXLAN-GPE], Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing
   Encapsulation (NVGRE) [RFC7637], , Geneve [Geneve], Generic UDP
   Encapsulation (GUE) [GUE], etc.

   What makes NVO3 different from any other network is that some NVEs,
   especially the NVE implemented on server, might not support PIM or
   other native multicast mechanisms. They might just encapsulate the
   data packets from VMs with an outer unicast header. Therefore, it is
   important for networks using NVO3 to have mechanisms to support
   multicast as a network capability for NVEs, to map multicast traffic
   from VMs (users/applications) to an equivalent multicast capability
   inside the NVE, or to figure out the outer destination address if
   NVE does not support native multicast (e.g. PIM) or IGMP.

   Besides the need to support ARP and ND, there are several
   applications that require the support of multicast and/or broadcast
   in data centers [DC-MC]. With NVO3, there are many possible ways
   that multicast may be handled in such networks.  We discuss some of
   the attributes of the following four methods:

         1. No multicast support.

         2. Replication at the source NVE.

         3. Replication at a multicast service node.

         4. IP multicast in the underlay.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   These methods are briefly mentioned in the NVO3 Framework [FW] and
   NVO3 architecture [NVO3-ARCH] document. This document provides more
   details about the basic mechanisms underlying each of these methods
   and discusses the issues and tradeoffs of each.

   We note that other methods are also possible, such as [EDGE-REP],
   but we focus on the above four because they are the most common.

3.1. No multicast support

   In this scenario, there is no support whatsoever for multicast
   traffic when using the overlay. This method can only work if the
   following conditions are met:

     1. All of the application traffic in the network is unicast
        traffic and the only multicast/broadcast traffic is from ARP/ND

     2. An NVA is used by the NVEs to determine the mapping of a given
        Tenant System's (TS's) MAC/IP address to its NVE. In other
        words, there is no data plane learning. Address resolution
        requests via ARP/ND that are issued by the TSs must be resolved
        by the NVE that they are attached to.

   With this approach, it is not possible to support application-
   specific multicast.  However, certain multicast/broadcast
   applications such as DHCP can be supported by use of a helper
   function in the NVE.

   The main drawback of this approach, even for unicast traffic, is
   that it is not possible to initiate communication with a TS for
   which a mapping to an NVE does not already exist in the NVA.  This
   is a problem in the case where the NVE is implemented in a physical
   switch and the TS is a physical end station that has not registered
   with the NVA.

3.2. Replication at the source NVE

   With this method, the overlay attempts to provide a multicast
   service without requiring any specific support from the underlay,
   other than that of a unicast service.  A multicast or broadcast
   transmission is achieved by replicating the packet at the source

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   NVE, and making copies, one for each destination NVE that the
   multicast packet must be sent to.

   For this mechanism to work, the source NVE must know, a priori, the
   IP addresses of all destination NVEs that need to receive the
   packet.  For the purpose of ARP/ND, this would involve knowing the
   IP addresses of all the NVEs that have TSs in the virtual network
   (VN) of the TS that generated the request.  For the support of
   application-specific multicast traffic, a method similar to that of
   receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast group
   described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used.  The registrations from
   different receiver-sites can be merged at the NVA, which can
   construct a multicast replication-list inclusive of all NVEs to
   which receivers for a particular multicast group are attached. The
   replication-list for each specific multicast group is maintained by
   the NVA. Note: Using LISP-signal-free does not necessarily mean the
   head-end (i.e. NVE) must do replication. If the mapping database
   (i.e. NVA) indicates that packets are encapsulated to multicast
   RLOCs, then there is no replication happening at the NVE.

   The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs
   performing the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain state for which
   attached TSs have subscribed to a given IP multicast group.  When
   the members of a multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is
   necessary for NVO3 gateways to keep track of the remote members of
   each multicast group.  The NVEs and NVO3 gateways then communicate
   the multicast groups that are of interest to the NVA.  If the
   membership is not communicated to the NVA, and if it is necessary to
   prevent hosts attached to an NVE that have not subscribed to a
   multicast group from receiving the multicast traffic, the NVE would
   need to maintain multicast group membership information.

   In the absence of IGMP/MLD snooping, the traffic would be delivered
   to all TSs that are part of the VN.

   In multi-homing environments, i.e., in those where a TS is attached
   to more than one NVE, the NVA would be expected to provide
   information to all of the NVEs under its control about all of the
   NVEs to which such a TS is attached.  The ingress NVE can choose any
   one of the egress NVEs for the data frames destined towards the TS.

   This method requires multiple copies of the same packet to all NVEs
   that participate in the VN.  If, for example, a tenant subnet is
   spread across 50 NVEs, the packet would have to be replicated 50
   times at the source NVE.  This also creates an issue with the
   forwarding performance of the NVE.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   Note that this method is similar to what was used in Virtual Private
   LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4762] prior to support of Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) multicast [RFC7117]. While there are some
   similarities between MPLS Virtual Private Network (VPN) and NVO3,
   there are some key differences:

  - The Customer Edge (CE) to Provider Edge (PE) attachment in VPNs is
     somewhat static, whereas in a DC that allows VMs to migrate
     anywhere, the TS attachment to NVE is much more dynamic.

  - The number of PEs to which a single  VPN customer is attached in
     an MPLS VPN environment is normally far less than the number of
     NVEs to which a VN's VMs are attached in a DC.

     When a VPN customer has multiple multicast groups, [RFC6513]
     "Multicast VPN" combines all those multicast groups within each
     VPN client to one single multicast group in the MPLS (or VPN)
     core.  The result is that messages from any of the multicast
     groups belonging to one VPN customer will reach all the PE nodes
     of the client. In other words, any messages belonging to any
     multicast groups under customer X will reach all PEs of the
     customer X. When the customer X is attached to only a handful of
     PEs, the use of this approach does not result in excessive wastage
     of bandwidth in the provider's network.

     In a DC environment, a typical server/hypervisor based virtual
     switch may only support 10's VMs (as of this writing). A subnet
     with N VMs may be, in the worst case, spread across N vSwitches.
     Using "MPLS VPN multicast" approach in such a scenario would
     require the creation of a Multicast group in the core for this VN
     to reach all N NVEs. If only small percentage of this client's VMs
     participate in application specific multicast, a great number of
     NVEs will receive multicast traffic that is not forwarded to any
     of their attached VMs, resulting in considerable wastage of

   Therefore, the Multicast VPN solution may not scale in DC
   environment with dynamic attachment of Virtual Networks to NVEs and
   greater number of NVEs for each virtual network.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

3.3. Replication at a multicast service node

   With this method, all multicast packets would be sent using a
   unicast tunnel encapsulation from the ingress NVE to a multicast
   service node (MSN).  The MSN, in turn, would create multiple copies
   of the packet and would deliver a copy, using a unicast tunnel
   encapsulation, to each of the NVEs that are part of the multicast
   group for which the packet is intended.

   This mechanism is similar to that used by the Asynchronous Transfer
   Mode (ATM) Forum's LAN Emulation (LANE)LANE specification [LANE].
   The MSN is similar to the RP in PIM SM, but different in that the
   user data traffic are carried by the NVO3 tunnels.

   The following are the possible ways for the MSN to get the
   membership information for each multicast group:

   - The MSN can obtain this membership information from the IGMP/MLD
     report messages sent by TSs in response to IGMP/MLD query messages
     from the MSN. The IGMP/MLD query messages are sent from the MSN to
     the NVEs, which then multicast the query messages to TSs attached
     to them.  An IGMP/MLD query messages sent out by the MSN to an NVE
     is encapsulated with the MSN address in the outer source address
     field and the address of the NVE in the outer destination address
     field. The encapsulated IGMP/MLD query messages also has a VNID
     for a virtual network (VN) that TSs belong in the outer header and
     a multicast address in the inner destination address field. Upon
     receiving the encapsulated IGMP/MLD query message, the NVE
     establishes a mapping "MSN address" <-> "multicast address",
     decapsulates the received encapsulated IGMP/MLD message, and
     multicast the decapsulated IGMP/MLD query message to TSs that
     belong to the VN under the NVE. A IGMP/MLD report message sent by
     a TS includes the multicast address and the address of the TS.
     With the proper "MSN Address" <-> "Multicast-Address" mapping, the
     NVEs can encapsulate all multicast data frames sent by TSs to the
     "Multicast-Address" with the address of the MSN in the outer
     destination address field.

   - The MSN can obtain the membership information from the NVEs that
     have the capability to establish multicast groups by snooping
     native IGMP/MLD messages (p.s. the communication must be specific

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

     to the multicast addresses), or by having the NVA obtain the
     information from the NVEs, and in turn have MSN communicate with
     the NVA. This approach requires additional protocol between MSN
     and NVEs.

   Unlike the method described in Section 3.2, there is no performance
   impact at the ingress NVE, nor are there any issues with multiple
   copies of the same packet from the source NVE to the Multicast
   Service Node.  However, there remain issues with multiple copies of
   the same packet on links that are common to the paths from the MSN
   to each of the egress NVEs.  Additional issues that are introduced
   with this method include the availability of the MSN, methods to
   scale the services offered by the MSN, and the sub-optimality of the
   delivery paths.

   Finally, the IP address of the source NVE must be preserved in
   packet copies created at the multicast service node if data plane
   learning is in use.  This could create problems if IP source address
   reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks are in use.

3.4. IP multicast in the underlay

   In this method, the underlay supports IP multicast and the ingress
   NVE encapsulates the packet with the appropriate IP multicast
   address in the tunnel encapsulation header for delivery to the
   desired set of NVEs.  The protocol in the underlay could be any
   variant of Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM), or protocol
   dependent multicast, such as [ISIS-Multicast].

   If an NVE connects to its attached TSs via a Layer 2 network, there
   are multiple ways for NVEs to support the application specific

  - The NVE only supports the basic IGMP/MLD snooping function, let
     the TSs routers handling the application specific multicast. This
     scheme doesn't utilize the underlay IP multicast protocols.

  - The NVE can act as a pseudo multicast router for the directly
     attached VMs and support proper mapping of IGMP/MLD's messages to
     the messages needed by the underlay IP multicast protocols.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   With this method, there are none of the issues with the methods
   described in Sections 3.2.

   With PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), the number of flows required would be
   (n*g), where n is the number of source NVEs that source packets for
   the group, and g is the number of groups.  Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR-
   PIM) would offer better scalability with the number of flows
   required being g. Unfortunately, many vendors still do not fully
   support BIDIR or have limitations on its implementaion. RFC6831
   [RFC6831] has good description of using SSM as an alternative to
   BIDIR if the VTEP/NVE devices have a way to learn of each other's IP
   address so that they could join all SSM SPT's to create/maintain an
   underlay SSM IP Multicast tunnel solution.

   In the absence of any additional mechanism, e.g. using an NVA for
   address resolution, for optimal delivery, there would have to be a
   separate group for each tenant, plus a separate group for each
   multicast address (used for multicast applications) within a tenant.

   Additional considerations are that only the lower 23 bits of the IP
   address (regardless of whether IPv4 or IPv6 is in use) are mapped to
   the outer MAC address, and if there is equipment that prunes
   multicasts at Layer 2, there will be some aliasing.  Finally, a
   mechanism to efficiently provision such addresses for each group
   would be required.

   There are additional optimizations which are possible, but they come
   with their own restrictions.  For example, a set of tenants may be
   restricted to some subset of NVEs and they could all share the same
   outer IP multicast group address.  This however introduces a problem
   of sub-optimal delivery (even if a particular tenant within the
   group of tenants doesn't have a presence on one of the NVEs which
   another one does, the former's multicast packets would still be
   delivered to that NVE).  It also introduces an additional network
   management burden to optimize which tenants should be part of the
   same tenant group (based on the NVEs they share), which somewhat
   dilutes the value proposition of NVO3 which is to completely
   decouple the overlay and physical network design allowing complete
   freedom of placement of VMs anywhere within the data center.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   Multicast schemes such as BIER (Bit Indexed Explicit Replication)
   [BIER-ARCH] may be able to provide optimizations by allowing the
   underlay network to provide optimum multicast delivery without
   requiring routers in the core of the network to maintain per-
   multicast group state.

3.5. Other schemes

   There are still other mechanisms that may be used that attempt to
   combine some of the advantages of the above methods by offering
   multiple replication points, each with a limited degree of
   replication [EDGE-REP].  Such schemes offer a trade-off between the
   amount of replication at an intermediate node (router) versus
   performing all of the replication at the source NVE or all of the
   replication at a multicast service node.

4. Simultaneous use of more than one mechanism

   While the mechanisms discussed in the previous section have been
   discussed individually, it is possible for implementations to rely
   on more than one of these.  For example, the method of Section 3.1
   could be used for minimizing ARP/ND, while at the same time,
   multicast applications may be supported by one, or a combination of,
   the other methods.  For small multicast groups, the methods of
   source NVE replication or the use of a multicast service node may be
   attractive, while for larger multicast groups, the use of multicast
   in the underlay may be preferable.

5. Other issues

5.1. Multicast-agnostic NVEs

   Some hypervisor-based NVEs do not process or recognize IGMP/MLD
   frames; i.e. those NVEs simply encapsulate the IGMP/MLD messages in
   the same way as they do for regular data frames.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

   By default, TSs router periodically sends IGMP/MLD query messages to
   all the hosts in the subnet to trigger the hosts that are interested
   in the multicast stream to send back IGMP/MLD reports. In order for
   the MSN to get the updated multicast group information, the MSN can
   also send the IGMP/MLD query message comprising a client specific
   multicast address, encapsulated in an overlay header to all the NVEs
   to which the TSs in the VN are attached.

   However, the MSN may not always be aware of the client specific
   multicast addresses.  In order to perform multicast filtering, the
   MSN has to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
   corresponding routers to maintain the multicast membership. In order
   for the MSN to snoop the IGMP/MLD messages between TSs and their
   router, the NVA needs to configure the NVE to send copies of the
   IGMP/MLD messages to the MSN in addition to the default behavior of
   sending them to the TSs' routers; e.g. the NVA has to inform the
   NVEs to encapsulate data frames with DA being (destination
   address of IGMP report) to TSs' router and MSN.

   This process is similar to "Source Replication" described in Section
   3.2, except the NVEs only replicate the message to TSs' router and

5.2. Multicast membership management for DC with VMs

   For data centers with virtualized servers, VMs can be added, deleted
   or moved very easily. When VMs are added, deleted or moved, the NVEs
   to which the VMs are attached are changed.

   When a VM is deleted from an NVE or a new VM is added to an NVE, the
   VM management system should notify the MSN to send the IGMP/MLD
   query messages to the relevant NVEs (as described in Section 3.3),
   so that the multicast membership can be updated promptly.
   Otherwise, if there are changes of VMs attachment to NVEs, within
   the duration of the configured default time interval that the TSs
   routers use for IGMP/MLD queries, multicast data may not reach the
   VM(s) that moved.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

6. Summary

   This document has identified various mechanisms for supporting
   application specific multicast in networks that use NVO3.  It
   highlights the basics of each mechanism and some of the issues with
   them.  As solutions are developed, the protocols would need to
   consider the use of these mechanisms and co-existence may be a
   consideration.  It also highlights some of the requirements for
   supporting multicast applications in an NVO3 network.

7. Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce any new security considerations beyond
   what may be present in proposed solutions.

8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
   this section before publication.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC7365] Lasserre, M. et al., "Framework for data center (DC)
             network virtualization", October 2014.

   [RFC7364] Narten, T. et al., "Problem statement: Overlays for
             network virtualization", October 2014.

   [NVO3-ARCH] Narten, T. et al.," An Architecture for Overlay Networks
             (NVO3)", RFC8014, Dec. 2016.

   [RFC3376] Cain B. et al., "Internet Group Management Protocol,
             Version 3", October 2002.

   [RFC6513] Rosen, E. et al., "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs",
             February 2012.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

9.2. Informative References

    [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M. et al., " Virtual eXtensible Local Area
             Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized
             Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", August 2014.

    [RFC7637]  Garg P. and Wang, Y. (Eds.), "NVGRE: Network
             Vvirtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
             September 2015.

   [DC-MC]  McBride, M. and Lui, H., "Multicast in the data center
             overview," <draft-mcbride-armd-mcast-overview-02>, work in
             progress, July 2012.


             Yong, L. et al., "ISIS Protocol Extension for Building
             Distribution Trees", <draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-
             tree-03>, work in progress, October 2014.

    [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., and Kompella, V. (Eds.), "Virtual Private
             LAN Service (VPLS) using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
             signaling," January 2007.

    [RFC7117] Aggarwal, R. et al., "Multicast in VPLS," February 2014.

    [LANE]   "LAN emulation over ATM," The ATM Forum, af-lane-0021.000,
             January 1995.


             Marques P. et al., "Edge multicast replication for BGP IP
             VPNs," <draft-marques-l3vpn-mcast-edge-01>, work in
             progress, June 2012.

    [RFC 3569]

             S. Bhattacharyya, Ed., "An Overview of Source-Specific
             Multicast (SSM)", July 2003.


             Moreno, V. and Farinacci, D., "Signal-Free LISP
             Multicast", <draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-01>,
             work in progress, April 2016.


Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

             Kreeger, L. and Elzur, U. (Eds.), "Generic Protocol
             Extension for VXLAN", <draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02>, work
             in progress, April 2016.


            Gross, J. and Ganga, I. (Eds.), "Geneve: Generic Network
             Virtualization Encapsulation", <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-
             01>, work in progress, January 2016.


            Herbert, T. et al., "Generic UDP Encapsulation", <draft-
             ietf-nvo3-gue-02>, work in progress, December 2015.


            Wijnands, IJ. (Ed.) et al., "Multicast using Bit Index
             Explicit Replication," <draft-ietf-bier-architecture-03>,
             January 2016.

   [RFC 3819]

            P. Harn et al., "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers",
            July 2004.

   [RFC6831] Farinacci, D. et al., "The Locator/ID Seperation Protocol
             (LISP) for Multicast Environments", Jan, 2013.

10. Acknowledgments

   Many thanks are due to Dino Farinacci, Erik Nordmark, Lucy Yong,
   Nicolas Bouliane, Saumya Dikshit, Joe Touch, Olufemi Komolafe, and
   Matthew Bocci, for their valuable comments and suggestions.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    A framework for multicast in NVO3       February 2016

Authors' Addresses

   Anoop Ghanwani
   Email: anoop@alumni.duke.edu

   Linda Dunbar
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 1750
   Plano, TX 75024, USA
   Phone: (469) 277 5840
   Email: ldunbar@huawei.com

   Mike McBride
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: mmcbride7@gmail.com

   Vinay Bannai
   Email: vbannai@gmail.com

   Ram Krishnan
   Email: ramkri123@gmail.com

Ghanwani et al.         Expires November 2017                 [Page 17]