Skip to main content

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