Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures
RFC 7716
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-12-10
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2015-12-10
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7716">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2015-12-02
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7716">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2015-11-04
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast@ietf.org, thomas.morin@orange.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2015-09-18
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2015-09-18
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2015-09-18
|
03 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Eric Rosen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2015-09-17
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-03.txt |
|
2015-09-11
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2015-09-06
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
|
2015-09-03
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2015-09-03
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] What Kathleen said. |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot comment text updated for Stephen Farrell |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the SecDir review questions. I found the explanation helpful and think some text in the draft would be good … [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the SecDir review questions. I found the explanation helpful and think some text in the draft would be good for this particular question from the review since this is specific to this draft: [Cathy] What is not clear here is what is additional risk of information leaking out into the wild the use of the GTM procedures proposed in this document would incur. Does the use in a wider context mean that the information is more widely distributed and thus has more chance of leaking? [Eric/Editor response] When L3VPN/MVPN is provisioned, each VRF is configured with import RTs and export RTs. These RTs constrain the distribution and the import of L3VPN/MVPN routes, making it difficult to cause a route to be distributed to and imported by a VRF (or a global table) that is not authorized to import that route. Additionally, VPN routes do not go into the "global table" with the "ordinary Internet routes" (i.e., non-VPN routes), and non-VPN routes do not impact the flow of multicast data within a VPN. In GTM, some of these protections against improper distribution/import of the routes is lost. Import of the routes is not restricted to VRFs, and the RT infrastructure that controls the distribution of routes among the VRFs is not present when routes are exported from and imported into global tables. But I don't think this needs to be explained in detail to the intended audience of the draft, who will already be familiar with VPN and MVPN technology. SecDir Review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05940.html |
|
2015-09-02
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-09-01
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2015-09-01
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-09-01
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2015-09-01
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I support the publication of this document, but I have one (non-blocking) comment... I do not see any forwarding plane discussions in this … [Ballot comment] I support the publication of this document, but I have one (non-blocking) comment... I do not see any forwarding plane discussions in this document and I wonder if there was discussion about impacts on multicast forwarding. With the removal of the VPN-related checks, is there a possibility of loops in the forwarding of multicast data based on the GTM information? What about implications for RPF checks? |
|
2015-09-01
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2015-08-27
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
|
2015-08-27
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
|
2015-08-21
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2015-08-18
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2015-08-13
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows. |
|
2015-08-12
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-12
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
|
2015-08-07
|
02 | David Black | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to David Black was rejected |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Lionel Morand |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
|
2015-08-06
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <bess@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <bess@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt> (Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN Procedures) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN Procedures' <draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC6513, RFC6514, and other RFCs describe protocols and procedures which a Service Provider (SP) may deploy in order offer Multicast Virtual Private Network (Multicast VPN or MVPN) service to its customers. Some of these procedures use BGP to distribute VPN- specific multicast routing information across a backbone network. With a small number of relatively minor modifications, the very same BGP procedures can also be used to distribute multicast routing information that is not specific to any VPN. Multicast that is outside the context of a VPN is known as "Global Table Multicast", or sometimes simply as "Internet multicast". In this document, we describe the modifications that are needed to use the MVPN BGP procedures for Global Table Multicast. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-03 |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-08-04
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2015-08-01
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast@ietf.org, thomas.morin@orange.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org from "Thomas Morin" <thomas.morin@orange.com> |
|
2015-08-01
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Standard Track (properly indicated in header) (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary RFC6513, RFC6514, and other RFCs describe protocols and procedures which a Service Provider may deploy in order offer Multicast Virtual Private Network service to its customers. Some of these procedures use BGP to distribute VPN- specific multicast routing information across a backbone network. With a small number of relatively minor modifications, the very same BGP procedures can also be used to distribute multicast routing information that is not specific to any VPN. Multicast that is outside the context of a VPN is known as "Global Table Multicast", or sometimes simply as "Internet multicast". In this document, we describe the modifications that are needed to use the MVPN BGP procedures for Global Table Multicast. Working Group Summary Nothing particular: working-group adoption without any opposition raised, ditto for WGLC. Document Quality The shepherd believes that the document is of good technical quality. There are two implementations known by the shepherd, including one by Juniper, and one operator has provided information on an actual deployment giving satisfying results. Personnel Document Shepherd is Thomas Morin. Responsible AD is Alvaro Retana. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd did a thorough review which will merely lead to minor changes. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. N/A. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concern. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR was disclosed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Good consensus, although among a small set of contributors. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (idnits did not find anything to complain about) (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, no issue here. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No, issue here. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No, issue here. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No such case. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). (no required IANA action) Note that these specifications use Route Distinguishers composed of all-zeros, similarly as recently-approved RFC 7524. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (no IANA-impacting content) (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Standard Track (properly indicated in header) (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary RFC6513, RFC6514, and other RFCs describe protocols and procedures which a Service Provider may deploy in order offer Multicast Virtual Private Network service to its customers. Some of these procedures use BGP to distribute VPN- specific multicast routing information across a backbone network. With a small number of relatively minor modifications, the very same BGP procedures can also be used to distribute multicast routing information that is not specific to any VPN. Multicast that is outside the context of a VPN is known as "Global Table Multicast", or sometimes simply as "Internet multicast". In this document, we describe the modifications that are needed to use the MVPN BGP procedures for Global Table Multicast. Working Group Summary Nothing particular: working-group adoption without any opposition raised, ditto for WGLC. Document Quality The shepherd believes that the document is of good technical quality. There are two implementations known by the shepherd, including one by Juniper, and one operator has provided information on an actual deployment giving satisfying results. Personnel Document Shepherd is Thomas Morin. Responsible AD is Alvaro Retana. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd did a thorough review which will merely lead to minor changes. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. N/A. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concern. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR was disclosed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Good consensus, although among a small set of contributors. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (idnits did not find anything to complain about) (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, no issue here. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No, issue here. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No, issue here. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No such case. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). (no required IANA action) Note that these specifications use Route Distinguishers composed of all-zeros, similarly as recently-approved RFC 7524. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (no IANA-impacting content) (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-07-22
|
02 | Thomas Morin | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2015-07-20
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt |
|
2015-07-10
|
01 | Thomas Morin | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-06-26
|
01 | Thomas Morin | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2015-06-24
|
01 | Thomas Morin | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-05-18
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-01.txt |
|
2014-12-16
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Notification list changed to "Thomas Morin" <thomas.morin@orange.com> |
|
2014-12-16
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Morin |
|
2014-12-16
|
00 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2014-11-28
|
00 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2014-11-21
|
00 | Thomas Morin | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2014-11-21
|
00 | Thomas Morin | This document now replaces draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast instead of None |
|
2014-11-20
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-00.txt |