﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-15" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="MVPN Fast Upstream Failover">Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover</title>

    <author fullname="Thomas Morin" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Morin">
      <organization>Orange</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2, avenue Pierre Marzin</street>

          <city>Lannion</city>

          <code>22307</code>

          <country>France</country>
        </postal>

        <email>thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Robert Kebler" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Kebler">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1194 North Mathilda Ave.</street>

          <city>Sunnyvale</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>94089</code>

          <country>U.S.A.</country>
        </postal>

        <email>rkebler@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

	<author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="Greg Mirsky" role="editor">
		<organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
		<address>
			<email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email>
		</address> 
	</author>
	

    <date year="2021"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines Multicast Virtual Private Network (VPN) extensions and procedures that
      allow fast failover for upstream failures by allowing downstream Provider Edges (PEs) to
      consider the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when
      selecting the Upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow.
      The fast failover is enabled by using
      RFC 8562 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks and the new BGP Attribute - BFD Discriminator.
      Also, the document
      introduces a new BGP Community, Standby PE,
      extending BGP Multicast VPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertised toward a
      Standby Upstream PE.</t>
    </abstract>

  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
    
    <t>It is assumed that the reader is
familiar with the workings of multicast MPLS/BGP IP VPNs as described in
<xref target="RFC6513"/> and <xref target="RFC6514"/>.</t>

      <t>In the context of multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs <xref target="RFC6513"/>, it is desirable to
      provide mechanisms allowing fast recovery of connectivity on different
      types of failures. This document addresses failures of elements in the
      provider network that are upstream of PEs connected to VPN sites with
      receivers.</t>

          <t>
          <xref target="tunnel-status"/>
          describes local procedures allowing an egress PE (a PE connected to
          a receiver site) to take into account the status of P-tunnels to
          determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a given (C-S,
          C-G). One of the optional methods uses <xref target="RFC8562"/> and the new BGP Attribute - BFD Discriminator.
          None of these methods provide a "fast failover" solution
          when used alone, but can be used together with the mechanism described in <xref target="standby-join"/>
          for a "fast failover" solution.
          </t>

          <t>
          <xref target="standby-join"/>
          describes an optional BGP extension, a new Standby PE Community. that can speed up failover by not
          requiring any multicast VPN (MVPN) routing message exchange at recovery time.
          </t>

      <t>
      <xref target="hot-standby"/>
      describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism that can be used to improve failover time in MVPN.
      The approach combines
      mechanisms defined in <xref target="tunnel-status"/> and <xref target="standby-join"/>,
      and has similarities with the solution
      described in <xref target="RFC7431"/> to improve failover
      times when PIM routing is used in a network given some topology and
      metric constraints.
      </t>
      <t>
      The procedures described in this document are optional and allow
      an operator to provide protection for multicast services in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.
      An operator would enable these mechanisms using a method discussed in <xref target="tunnel-status"/>
      combined with the redundancy provided by a standby PE connected to the multicast flow source.
      PEs that support these mechanisms would converge faster and thus provide a more stable multicast service.
       In the case that a BGP implementation
      does not recognize or is configured not to support the extensions defined in this document,
      the implementation will continue to provide the multicast service, as described in <xref target="RFC6513"/>.
      </t>
    </section>

      <section title="Conventions used in this document">
       <section title="Requirements Language">
             <t>
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
   "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> 
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
             </t>
    </section>
    
     <section title="Terminology">
      <t>The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined in
      <xref target="RFC6513"/> and <xref target="RFC6514"> </xref>.</t>
      <t>The term 'upstream' (lower case) throughout this document refers to links and nodes
      that are upstream to a PE connected to VPN sites with receivers of a multicast flow.</t>
      <t>The term 'Upstream' (capitalized) throughout this document refers to a  PE or an Autonomous
   System Border Router (ASBR) at which (S,G) or (*,G) data packets enter the VPN backbone or the local AS
   when traveling through the VPN backbone.</t>
    </section>
    
    <section title="Acronyms">
          <t>PMSI: P-Multicast Service Interface</t>
      <t>I-PMSI: Inclusive PMSI</t>
      <t>S-PMSI: Selective PMSI</t>
      <t>x-PMSI: Either an I-PMSI or an S-PMSI</t>
      <t>P-tunnel: Provider-Tunnels</t>
      <t>UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop</t>
      <t>VPN: Virtual Private Network</t>
      <t>MVPN: Multicast VPN</t>
      <t>RD: Route Distinguisher</t>
      <t>RP: Rendezvous Point</t>
      <t>NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information</t>
      <t>VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding Table</t>
      <t>MED: Multi-Exit Discriminator</t>
      <t>P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint</t>
    </section>
    
    </section>

    <section anchor="tunnel-status" title="UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status">
      <t>
      Section 5.1 of <xref target="RFC6513"/> describes procedures used by a
      multicast VPN downstream PE to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop
      (UMH) for a given (C-S, C-G).
      </t>
      <t>
   For a given downstream PE and a given VRF, the P-tunnel corresponding
   to a given Upstream PE for a given (C-S, C-G) state is the S-PMSI
   tunnel advertised by that Upstream PE for this (C-S, C-G) and
    imported into that VRF, or if there isn't any such S-PMSI, the I-PMSI
   tunnel advertised by that PE and imported into that VRF.
</t>
      <t>
The procedure described here is an optional procedure that is based on
   a downstream PE taking into account the status of P-tunnels
   rooted at each possible Upstream PE, for including or not including
   each given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S, C-G)
   state.
   If it is not possible to determine whether a P-tunnel's current status is Up,
the state shall be considered "not known to be Down",
and it may be treated as if it is Up so that attempts to use the tunnel are acceptable.
The result is that, if a P-tunnel is Down (see
   <xref target="tunnel-status-determination"/>), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not be
   considered for UMH selection. This will result in the downstream PE failing over to
   use the next Upstream PE in the list of candidates.

Some downstream PEs could arrive at a different conclusion
   regarding the tunnel's state because the failure impacts only a subset of branches.
Because of that, the procedures of Section 9.1.1 of <xref target="RFC6513"/> are applicable when using I-PMSI P-tunnels.
That document is a foundation for this document, and its processes all apply here.
<!--
Section 9.1.1 of <xref target="RFC6513"/> mandates the use of specific procedures for sending intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes.
-->
      </t>

            <t>
   There are three options specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] for a
   downstream PE to select an Upstream PE.
      <list style="symbols">
          <t>
          The first two options select the Upstream PE from a candidate PE
      set either based on an IP address or a hashing algorithm.  When used
      together with the optional procedure of considering the P-tunnel
      status as in this document, a candidate Upstream PE is included in
      the set if it either:
          <list style="letters">
          <t>
          advertises an x-PMSI bound to a tunnel, where the specified tunnel's state
          is not known to be Down, or,
          </t>
          <t>
          does not advertise any x-PMSI applicable to the given (C-S, C-G)
          but has associated a VRF Route Import BGP Extended Community to the
          unicast VPN route for S. That is necessary to avoid
          incorrectly invalidating a UMH PE that would use a policy
          where no I-PMSI is advertised for a given VRF and where only
          S-PMSI are used. The S-PMSI can be advertised
          only after the Upstream PE receives a C-multicast route for
          (C-S, C-G)/(C-*, C-G) to be carried over the advertised
          S-PMSI.
          </t>
          </list>
      If the resulting candidate set is empty, then the procedure is
      repeated without considering the P-tunnel status.
          </t>

          <t>
      The third option uses the installed UMH Route (i.e., the "best"
      route towards the C-root) as the Selected UMH Route, and its
      originating PE is the selected Upstream PE.  With the optional
      procedure of considering P-tunnel status as in this document, the
      Selected UMH Route is the best one among those whose originating
      PE's P-tunnel is not "down".  If that does not exist, the
      installed UMH Route is selected regardless of the P-tunnel status.
          </t>
        </list>
        </t>

      <section anchor="tunnel-status-determination" title="Determining the Status of a Tunnel">
        <t>
        Different factors can be considered to determine the "status" of a
        P-tunnel and are described in the following sub-sections. The
   optional procedures described in this section also handle the case when
   the downstream PEs do not all apply the same rules to define what the
   status of a P-tunnel is
        (please see <xref target="dups"> </xref>), and some of them will
        produce a result that may be different for different downstream PEs.
        Thus, the "status" of a P-tunnel in this section is not a characteristic
        of the tunnel in itself, but is the tunnel status, as seen from a particular
        downstream PE. Additionally, some of the following methods determine 
        the ability of a downstream PE to receive traffic on the P-tunnel 
        and not specifically on the status of the P-tunnel itself.  
        That could be referred to as "P-tunnel reception status", but for 
        simplicity, we will use the terminology of P-tunnel "status" for 
        all of these methods.
        </t>

        <t>Depending on the criteria used to determine the status of a
        P-tunnel, there may be an interaction with another resiliency mechanism
        used for the P-tunnel itself, and the UMH update may happen
        immediately or may need to be delayed. Each particular case is covered
        in each separate sub-section below.</t>
        
        <t>An implementation may support any combination of the methods described in this section and
        provide a network operator with control to choose which one to use in the particular deployment.</t>

        <section anchor="root-track-sec" title="MVPN Tunnel Root Tracking">
          <t>When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition
          to consider is whether the root of the tunnel, as specified
          in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute, is reachable through unicast routing tables. In this case,
          the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the
          reachability condition changes.</t>

          <t>That is similar to BGP next-hop tracking for VPN routes, except
          that the address considered is not the BGP next-hop address but the
          root address in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute. BGP next-hop tracking monitors
          BGP next-hop address changes in the routing table.  In general,
          when a change is detected, it performs a next-hop scan to find
          if any of the next hops in the BGP table is affected and updates it accordingly.</t>

          <t>If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes and the root
          address of a given tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop
          address in the BGP A-D Route advertising the tunnel, then checking, in unicast routing tables, whether the tunnel root
    is reachable, will be unnecessary duplication and thus will not bring
    any specific benefit.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="pe-p-link-status-sec" title="PE-P Upstream Link Status">
          <t>
          When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition to consider is whether the last-hop link of the P-tunnel is Up.
          Conversely, if the last-hop link of the P-tunnel is Down, then this can be taken as an indication
          that the P-tunnel is Down.
          </t>

          <t>
          Using this method when a fast
          restoration mechanism (such as MPLS FRR <xref target="RFC4090"/>) is in place for the link
          requires careful consideration and coordination of defect detection intervals for the link and the tunnel.
          When using multi-layer protection, particular consideration must be given to the
          interaction of defect detections at different network layers.
          It is recommended to use longer detection intervals at the higher layers.
          Some recommendations suggest using a multiplier of 3 or larger, e.g.,
          10 msec detection for the link failure detection and at least 100 msec for the tunnel failure detection.
          In many cases, it is not practical to use both protection methods simultaneously because
         uncorrelated timers might cause unnecessary switchovers and destabilize the network.
         </t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="rsvp-te-tunnel" title="P2MP RSVP-TE Tunnels">
          <t>
          For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is
   considered Up if the sub-LSP to this downstream PE is in the Up state. The determination of
          whether a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP is in the Up state requires Path and Resv
          state for the LSP and is based on procedures specified in <xref target="RFC4875"/>.
          As a result, the downstream PE can
          immediately update its UMH when the reachability condition
          changes.
          </t>

          <t>
          When using this method and if the signaling state for a P2MP TE LSP is removed (e.g., if the
          ingress of the P2MP TE LSP sends a PathTear message) or the P2MP TE
          LSP changes state from Up to Down as determined by procedures in
          <xref target="RFC4875"/>, the status of the corresponding
          P-tunnel MUST be re-evaluated. If the P-tunnel transitions from Up
          to Down state, the Upstream PE that is the ingress of the P-tunnel
          MUST NOT be considered as a valid candidate UMH.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="leaf-init-tunnel" title="Leaf-initiated P-tunnels">
          <t>An Upstream PE MUST be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given (C-S, C-G)
          if the P-tunnel (I-PMSI or S-PMSI) for this (S, G) is leaf-triggered
          (PIM, mLDP), but for some reason, internal to the protocol, the
          upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE cannot be built.
          As a result, the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when
          the reachability condition changes.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="counter-info-tunnel" title="(C-S, C-G) Counter Information">
          <t>In cases where the downstream node can be configured so that the
          maximum inter-packet time is known for all the multicast flows
          mapped on a P-tunnel, the local per-(C-S, C-G) traffic counter
          information for traffic received on this P-tunnel can be used to
          determine the status of the P-tunnel.</t>

          <t>When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration
          mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, a configurable timer MUST be set
          on the downstream PE to wait before updating the UMH to let the P-tunnel
          restoration mechanism execute its actions.
          Determining that a tunnel is probably down by waiting for enough packets
to fail to arrive as expected is a heuristic and operational matter that
depends on the maximum inter-packet time.  A timeout of three seconds is a
generally suitable default waiting period to ascertain that the tunnel is
down, though other values would be needed for atypical conditions.</t>
<!--
          <t>This method can be applicable, for instance, when a (C-S, C-G) flow is
          mapped on an S-PMSI.</t>
-->
          <t>In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with 
the method described in <xref target="hot-standby"/>, no prior knowledge of the rate or maximum inter-packet time on the
multicast streams is required; downstream PEs can periodically compare actual packet
reception statistics on the two P-tunnels to determine when one of them is
down. The detailed specification of this mechanism is outside the scope of this document.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="bfd-tunnel" title="BFD Discriminator Attribute">
          <t>
          The P-tunnel status may be derived from the status of a multipoint BFD session <xref target="RFC8562"/>
          whose discriminator is advertised along with an x-PMSI A-D Route.
                    A P2MP BFD session can be instantiated using a mechanism other than the BFD Discriminator attribute,
          e.g., MPLS LSP Ping (<xref target="I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd"/>).
          The description of these methods is outside the scope of this document.
          </t>

          <t>
          This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP attribute called the "BFD Discriminator".
          It is an optional transitive BGP attribute. Thus it is expected that an implementation
          that does not recognize or is configured not to support this attribute, as if the attribute was unrecognized,
          follows procedures defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC4271"/>.
          In <xref target="iana-bfd-discr"/>, IANA is requested to allocate the codepoint value (TBA2).
          The format of this attribute is shown in <xref target="bfd-attr-fig"/>.
          </t>
          <figure align="left" anchor="bfd-attr-fig" title="Format of the BFD Discriminator Attribute">
          <artwork>
          <![CDATA[

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    BFD Mode   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       BFD Discriminator                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                         Optional TLVs                         ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
          ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

          <t>
          Where:
          <list style="hanging">
          <t>BFD Mode field is one octet long. This specification defines the P2MP BFD Session as value 1 <xref target="iana-bfd-discr"/>.</t>
          <t>BFD Discriminator field is four octets long.</t>
          <t>Optional TLVs is the optional variable-length field that MAY be used in the BFD Discriminator attribute for future extensions.
          TLVs MAY be included in a sequential or nested manner. To allow for TLV nesting,
          it is advised to define a new TLV as a variable-length object.
          <xref target="opt-tlv-fig"/> presents the Optional TLV format TLV that consists of:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>Type - a one-octet-long field that characterizes the interpretation of the Value field (<xref target="iana-bfd-attr-ext"/>)</t>
          <t>Length - a one-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value field in octets</t>
          <t>Value - a variable-length field.</t>
          </list>
             All multibyte fields in TLVs defined in this specification are in network byte order.
         </t>
          </list>
          
                    <figure align="left" anchor="opt-tlv-fig" title="Format of the Optional TLV">
          <artwork>
          <![CDATA[

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |     Length    |           Value             ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
          ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          </t>
          
<t>
An optional Source IP Address TLV is defined in this document.
The Source IP Address TLV MUST be used when the value of the BFD Mode field's value is P2MP BFD Session.
The BFD Discriminator attribute that does not include the Source IP Address TLV MUST be handled
according to the "attribute discard" approach, as defined in <xref target="RFC7606"/>.
For the Source IP Address TLV fields are set as follows:
<list style="symbols">
<t>
The Type field is set to 1 <xref target="iana-bfd-attr-ext"/>.
</t>
<t>
The Length field is 4 for the IPv4 address family and 16 for the IPv6 address family.
The TLV is considered malformed if the field is set to any other value.
</t>
<t>
The Value field contains the address associated with the MultipointHead of the P2MP BFD session.
</t>
</list>
</t>
          <t>
          The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed
          if its length is smaller than 11 octets or if Optional TLVs are present, but not well-formed.
           If the attribute is deemed to be malformed,
           the UPDATE message SHALL be handled using the approach of Attribute Discard per <xref target="RFC7606"/>.
</t>

        <!-- </section> -->

        <section title="Upstream PE Procedures">


          <t>
          To enable downstream PEs to track the P-tunnel status using a point-to-multipoint (P2MP) BFD session the Upstream PE:
          
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>
          MUST initiate the BFD session and set bfd.SessionType = MultipointHead 
          as described in <xref target="RFC8562"/>;
          </t>
          <t>
          when transmitting BFD Control packets MUST set the IP destination address of the inner IP header to
          the internal loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 <xref target="RFC1122"/>.
          For IPv6, it MUST use the loopback address ::1/128 <xref target="RFC4291"/>.
          </t>
          <t>
          MUST use the IP address included in the Source IP Address TLV of the BFD Discriminator attribute
          as the source IP address when transmitting BFD Control packets;
          </t>
          <t>
          MUST include the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route with the value set to My Discriminator value;
          </t>
          <t>
          MUST periodically transmit BFD Control packets
          over the x-PMSI P-tunnel after the P-tunnel is considered established.
          Note that the methods to declare that a P-tunnel has been established
          are outside the scope of this specification.
		  </t>
          </list>
          
          </t>

          <t>
   If the tracking of the P-tunnel by using a P2MP BFD session is
  enabled after the x-PMSI A-D Route has been already advertised,
   the x-PMSI A-D
   Route MUST be re-sent with the only change between the previous advertisement and
the new advertisement to be
   the inclusion of the BFD Discriminator attribute.
          </t>

          <t>
   If the x-PMSI A-D Route is advertised with P-tunnel status tracked using
   the P2MP BFD session, and it is desired to stop tracking P-tunnel
   status using BFD, then:
          
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>
          x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with the only change between the previous advertisement and
the new advertisement be the exclusion of the BFD Discriminator attribute;
          </t>
          <t>
          the P2MP BFD session MUST be deleted. The session MAY be deleted
          after some configurable delay, which should have a reasonable default.
          </t>
          </list>
        
          </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Downstream PE Procedures">
          <t>
          Upon receiving the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the downstream PE:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>
          MUST associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the P-tunnel
          originating from the Upstream PE and the IP address of the Upstream PE;
          </t>
          <t>
          MUST create a P2MP BFD session and set bfd.SessionType = MultipointTail
          as described in <xref target="RFC8562"/>;
          </t>
          <t>
          to properly demultiplex BFD session MUST use:
          <list style="hanging">
          <t>the IP address in the Source IP Address TLV included the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
      Route;</t>
      <t>the value of the BFD Discriminator field in the BFD Discriminator attribute;</t>
      <t>the x-PMSI Tunnel Identifier <xref target="RFC6514"/> the BFD Control packet was received on.</t>
          </list>
          </t>
          </list>
          After the state of the P2MP BFD session is up, i.e., bfd.SessionState == Up,
           the session state will then be used to track the health of the P-tunnel.
          </t>

          <t>
          According to <xref target="RFC8562"/>, if the downstream PE 
          receives Down or AdminDown in the State field of the BFD Control packet or
          associated with the BFD session Detection Timer associated with the BFD session  expires, the BFD session is down,
          i.e., bfd.SessionState == Down. When the BFD session state is Down,
          then the P-tunnel associated with the BFD session MUST be considered down.
          If the site that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs, a downstream PE
          will select one as its Primary Upstream PE, while others are considered as Standby Upstream PEs.
          In such a scenario, when the P-tunnel is considered down,
          the downstream PE MAY initiate a switchover of the traffic from the
          Primary Upstream PE to the Standby Upstream PE only if the Standby Upstream PE is deemed to be in the Up state. 
          That MAY be determined from the state of a P2MP BFD session with the Standby Upstream PE as the MultipointHead.
          </t>

          <t>
          If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established when the downstream PE
          receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route with BFD Discriminator attribute, 
          the downstream PE MUST associate the value of BFD Discriminator
          field with the P-tunnel and follow procedures listed above in this section
          if and only if the x-PMSI A-D Route was properly processed
          as per <xref target="RFC6514"/>, and the BFD Discriminator attribute was validated. 
          </t>

          <t>
          If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established, its state being
   monitored by the P2MP BFD session set up using the BFD Discriminator
   attribute, and the downstream PE receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route 
          without the BFD Discriminator attribute, and the x-PMSI A-D Route was processed without any error
          as per the relevant specifications, the downstream PE:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>
          MUST stop processing BFD Control packets for this P2MP BFD session;
          </t>
          <t>
          the P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel MUST be deleted. The session MAY be deleted
          after some configurable delay, which should have a reasonable default.
          </t>
          <t>
          MUST NOT switch the traffic to the Standby Upstream PE.
          </t>
          </list>
          </t>
<!--
          <t>
          In such a scenario, in the context where fast restoration
          mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, leaf PEs should be
          configured to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel
          restoration mechanism happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided
          for this purpose, and it is RECOMMENDED to provide a reasonable
          default value for this timer.
          </t>
  -->

        </section>
 
        </section>

        <section title="Per PE-CE Link BFD Discriminator">
        
          <t>
   The following approach is defined in response to the detection by the
   Upstream PE of a PE-CE link failure.  Even though the provider tunnel
   is still up, it is desired for the downstream PEs to switch to a
   backup Upstream PE. To achieve that, if the Upstream PE detects that
   its PE-CE link fails, it MUST set the bfd.LocalDiag of the P2MP BFD
   session to Concatenated Path Down or Reverse Concatenated Path
   Down (per Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880]), unless it switches to a new PE-
   CE link within the time of bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval for the P2MP BFD
   session (in that case, the Upstream PE will start tracking the status
   of the new PE-CE link).  When a downstream PE receives that
   bfd.LocalDiag code, it treats it as if the tunnel itself failed and
   tries to switch to a backup PE.
          </t>

        </section>

<section anchor="operational-sec" title="Operational Considerations for Monitoring P-Tunnel's Status">
<t>
Several methods to monitor the status of a P-tunnel are described in <xref target="tunnel-status-determination"/>.
<!--Though there might be no perfect method, a comparison of benefits and challenges of each technique could be helpful
to both implementors and network operators.-->
</t>
<t>
Tracking the root of an MVPN (<xref target="root-track-sec"/>) concludes about the status of a P-tunnel
based on the control plane information. Because, in general, the MPLS data plane is not fate-sharing with the control plane,
this method might produce false positive or false negative alarms, For example, resulting in tunnels that considered as being up but are
not able to reach the root, or ones that are declared down
prematurely. On the other hand, because BGP next-hop tracking is broadly
supported and deployed, this method might be the easiest to deploy.
</t>
<t>
Method described in <xref target="pe-p-link-status-sec"/> monitors the state of the data plane but only for an egress P-PE link
of a P-tunnel. As a result, network failures that affect upstream links might not be detected using this method
and the MVPN convergence would be determined by the convergence of the BGP control plane.
</t>
<t>
Using the state change of a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP as the trigger to re-evaluate the status of the P-tunnel (<xref target="rsvp-te-tunnel"/>)
relies on the mechanism used to monitor the state of the P2MP LSP.
</t>
<t>
The method described in <xref target="leaf-init-tunnel"/> is simple
and is safe from causing false alarms, e.g., considering a tunnel operationally up even though its data path has a defect or, conversely, declaring a tunnel failed when it is unaffected.
 But the method applies to a sub-set of MVPNs, those that use the leaf-triggered x-PMSI tunnels.
</t>
<t>
Though some MVPN might be used to provide a multicast service with
predictable interpacket interval (<xref target="counter-info-tunnel"/>), the number of such cases seem limited.
</t>
<t>
Monitoring the status of a P-tunnel using p2mp BFD session (<xref target="bfd-tunnel"/>)
may produce the most accurate and expedient failure notification of all monitoring methods discussed.
On the other hand, it requires careful consideration of the additional load of BFD onto network and PE nodes.
Operators should consider the rate of BFD Control packets transmitted by root PEs
combined with the number of such PEs in the network. In addition, the number of P2MP BFD sessions per PE determines
the amount of state information that a PE maintains.
</t>
</section>

      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="standby-join" title="Standby C-multicast Route">
      <t>
      The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
      that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs, though, to simplify
      the description, the case of dual-homing is described. In the case where more than two PEs are connected to the C-s site,
      selection of the Standby PE can be performed using one of the methods of selecting
      a UMH. Details of the selection are outside the scope of this document.
     The procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the same UMH selection procedure,
      as specified in <xref target="RFC6513"/>, whether the PE selected based on its IP address,
      the hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3 of <xref target="RFC6513"/>, or Installed UMH Route.
      The consistency of the UMH selection method used among all PEs is expected to be
      provided by the management plane.
      The procedures assume
      that if a site of a given MVPN that contains C-S is dual-homed to two
      PEs, then all the other sites of that MVPN would have two unicast VPN
      routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) to C-S, each with its own RD.
      </t>

      <t>As long as C-S is reachable via both PEs, a given downstream PE will
      select one of the PEs connected to C-S as its Upstream PE for C-S.
      We will refer to the other PE connected to C-S as the "Standby
      Upstream PE". Note that if the connectivity to C-S through the Primary
      Upstream PE becomes unavailable, then the PE will select the Standby
      Upstream PE as its Upstream PE for C-S. When the Primary 
      PE later becomes available, then the PE will select the Primary Upstream 
      PE again as its Upstream PE. Such behavior is referred to as "revertive" behavior
      and MUST be supported.  Non-revertive behavior refers to the behavior 
      of continuing to select the backup PE as the UMH even after the Primary has 
      come up. This non-revertive behavior MAY also be supported by an 
      implementation and would be enabled through some configuration.
      Selection of the behavior, revertive or non-revertive, is an operational issue, but it MUST
      be consistent on all PEs in the given MVPN. While revertive is considered the default behavior,
      there might be cases where the switchover to the standby tunnel does not affect other services
      and provides the required quality of service. An operator might use non-revertive behavior
      to avoid unnecessary in such case switchover and thus minimize disruption to the multicast service.</t>

      <t>For readability, in the following sub-sections, the procedures are
      described for BGP C-multicast Source Tree Join routes, but they apply
      equally to BGP C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes for the case
      where the customer RP is dual-homed (substitute "C-RP" to "C-S").</t>

      <section anchor="ds-behavior" title="Downstream PE Behavior">
        <t>When a (downstream) PE connected to some site of an MVPN needs to
        send a C-multicast route (C-S, C-G), then following the procedures
        specified in Section 11.1 of <xref target="RFC6514"/>, the PE sends the
        C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Upstream PE selected by
        the PE originating the route. As long as C-S is reachable via the
        Primary Upstream PE, the Upstream PE is the Primary Upstream PE. If
        C-S is reachable only via the Standby Upstream PE, then the Upstream
        PE is the Standby Upstream PE.</t>

        <t>If C-S is reachable via both the Primary and the Standby Upstream
        PE, then in addition to sending the C-multicast route with an RT that
        identifies the Primary Upstream PE, the downstream PE also originates and sends a
        C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE.
        The route that has the semantics of being a "standby" C-multicast
        route is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast route", and is
        constructed as follows:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>the NLRI is constructed as the C-multicast route with an RT that
   identifies the Primary Upstream PE,
            except that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was
            built using the Standby Upstream PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD
            associated to the unicast VPN route advertised by the Standby Upstream PE
            for S and a Route Target derived from the Standby Upstream PE&#8217;s UMH
            route&#8217;s VRF RT Import EC);</t>

            <t>MUST carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (this is a new BGP
            Community. <xref target="pe-standby-com-iana"/> requested IANA to allocate value TBA1).</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>
        The Local Preference attribute of the normal and the standby C-multicast route
        needs to be adjusted. so that, if a BGP peer receives two C-multicast routes with
        the same NLRI, one carrying the "Standby PE" community
        and the other one not carrying the "Standby PE" community,
   then preference is given to the one not carrying the "Standby PE" community. Such a
        situation can happen when, for instance, due to transient unicast
        routing inconsistencies or lack of support of the Standby PE community,
        two different downstream PEs consider
        different Upstream PEs to be the primary one. In that case, without
        any precaution taken, both Upstream PEs would process a standby
        C-multicast route and possibly stop forwarding at the same time. For
        this purpose, routes that carry the Standby PE BGP Community must have the LOCAL_PREF
        attribute set to the value lower than the value specified as the LOCAL_PREF
        attribute for the route that does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community. The value of zero is RECOMMENDED.
        </t>

        <t>Note that, when a PE advertises such a Standby C-multicast join for
        a (C-S, C-G) it MUST join the corresponding P-tunnel.</t>

        <t>If, at some later point, the PE determines that C-S is no
        longer reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream
        PE becomes the Upstream PE, and the PE re-sends the C-multicast
        route with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that now
        the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which results
        in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only difference
        between these routes being the absence of the Standby PE BGP
        Community). The new Upstream PE must set
        the LOCAL_PREF attribute for that C-multicast route to the same value as when the Standby PE BGP Community was included in the advertisement.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="us-behavior" title="Upstream PE Behavior">
<t>
When a PE supporting this specification receives a C-multicast route for a particular (C-S, C-G) for which all of the following are true:
<list style="symbols">
<t>the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a particular VRF on the PE;</t>
<t>the route carries the Standby PE BGP Community; and</t>
<t>
the PE determines (via a method of failure detection that is outside the scope of this document)
that C-S is not reachable through some other PE (more details are in <xref target="reach-sec"/>),
</t>
</list>
then the PE MAY install VRF PIM state corresponding to this Standby BGP C-multicast route
(the result will be that a PIM Join message will be sent to the CE towards C-S, and that
the PE will receive (C-S, C-G) traffic), and the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G)
traffic received by the PE to other PEs through a P-tunnel rooted at the PE.
</t>

        <t>Furthermore, irrespective of whether C-S carried in that route is
        reachable through some other PE:</t>

        <t><list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="a)">based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives
            this Standby BGP C-multicast route, the PE MAY install VRF PIM
            state corresponding to this BGP Source Tree Join route (the result
            will be that Join messages will be sent to the CE toward C-S, and
            that the PE will receive (C-S, C-G) traffic)</t>

            <t hangText="b)">based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives
            this Standby BGP C-multicast route, the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G)
            traffic to other PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the
            reachability of C-S through some other PE. [note that this implies
            also doing a)]</t>
          </list></t>

        <t>Doing neither a) or b) for a given (C-S, C-G) is called "cold
        root standby".</t>

        <t>Doing a) but not b) for a given (C-S, C-G) is called "warm root
        standby".</t>

        <t>Doing b) (which implies also doing a)) for a given (C-S, C-G) is
        called "hot root standby".</t>

        <t>Note that, if an Upstream PE uses an S-PMSI only policy, it shall
        advertise an S-PMSI for a (C-S, C-G) as soon as it receives a C-multicast
        route for (C-S, C-G), normal or Standby; i.e., it shall not wait for
        receiving a non-Standby C-multicast route before advertising the
        corresponding S-PMSI.</t>

        <t>Section 9.3.2 of <xref target="RFC6513"/>, describes the procedures of 
        sending a Source-Active A-D Route as a result of receiving the C-multicast 
        route.  These procedures MUST be followed for both the normal and Standby 
        C-multicast routes.</t>
</section>

      <section anchor="reach-sec" title="Reachability Determination">
        <t>
        The Standby Upstream PE can use the following information to determine that
        C-S can or cannot be reached through the Primary Upstream PE:
        <list style="symbols">
            <t>presence/absence of a unicast VPN route toward C-S</t>

            <t>supposing that the Standby Upstream PE is the egress of the tunnel rooted
            at the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE can determine the reachability
            of C-S through the Primary Upstream PE based on the status of this tunnel,
            determined thanks to the same criteria as the ones described in
            <xref target="tunnel-status-determination"/> (without using
            the UMH selection procedures of <xref target="tunnel-status"/>);</t>

            <t>other mechanisms may be used.</t>
          </list>
          </t>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="interas" title="Inter-AS">
        <t>If the non-segmented inter-AS approach is used, the procedures described in
        <xref target="ds-behavior"/> through <xref target="reach-sec"/> can be applied.</t>

        <t>When multicast VPNs are used in an inter-AS context with the
        segmented inter-AS approach described in Section 9.2 of <xref target="RFC6514"/>, the procedures in
        this section can be applied.</t>

        <t>A pre-requisite for the procedures described below to be applied
        for a source of a given MVPN is:<list style="symbols">
            <t>that any PE of this MVPN receives two or more Inter-AS I-PMSI
            A-D Routes advertised by the AS of the source</t>

            <t>that these Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes have distinct
            Route Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of <xref target="RFC6514">section 9.2
            of</xref>).</t>
          </list>
          As an example, these conditions will be satisfied when the
        source is dual-homed to an AS that connects to the receiver AS through
        two ASBR using auto-configured RDs.</t>

        <section title="Inter-AS Procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR Fast Failover">
          <t>The following procedure is applied by downstream PEs of an AS,
          for a source S in a remote AS.</t>

          <t>Additionally to choosing an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route
          advertised from the AS of the source to construct a C-multicast
          route, as described in <xref target="RFC6514">section 11.1.3</xref>, a
          downstream PE will choose a second Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D
          Route advertised from the AS of the source and use this route to
          construct and advertise a Standby C-multicast route (C-multicast
          route carrying the Standby extended community), as described in <xref target="ds-behavior"> </xref>.</t>
        </section>

        <section title="Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs">
          <t>When an Upstream ASBR receives a C-multicast route, and at least
          one of the RTs of the route matches one of the ASBR Import RT, the
          ASBR, that supports this specification, must try to
          locate an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route whose RD and Source AS
          respectively match the RD and Source AS carried in the C-multicast route. If
          the match is found, and the C-multicast route carries the Standby PE BGP
          Community, then the ASBR implementation that supports this specification MUST be configurable to perform as follows:
          <list style="symbols">
              <t>if the route was received over iBGP and its LOCAL_PREF attribute is set to zero, then it MUST be
              re-advertised in eBGP with a MED attribute (MULTI_EXIT_DISC) set
              to the highest possible value (0xffff)</t>

              <t>if the route was received over eBGP and its MED attribute set to 0xffff, then it MUST be
              re-advertised in iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero</t>
            </list>
            Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification and, when applied, MAY modify the above-listed behavior.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="hot-standby" title="Hot Root Standby">
      <t>The mechanisms defined in <xref target="standby-join"/> and <xref target="tunnel-status"/>
      can be used together as follows.</t>

      <t>The principle is that, for a given VRF (or possibly only for a given
      (C-S, C-G):<list style="symbols">
          <t>downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based
          on <xref target="standby-join"/>)</t>

          <t>Upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and thus
          will start forwarding traffic for a given multicast state after they have
          a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
          C-multicast route for that state (or both)</t>

          <t>a policy controls downstream PEs from which tunnel to accept traffic.
          For example, the policy could be based on the status of the tunnel
          or tunnel monitoring method (<xref target="counter-info-tunnel"/>).</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in <xref target="standby-join"/> and <xref target="tunnel-status"/>
      are for further study.</t>

      <t>Note that the same level of protection would be achievable with a
      simple C-multicast Source Tree Join route advertised to both the primary
      and secondary Upstream PEs (carrying as Route Target extended
      communities, the values of the VRF Route Import Extended Community of each VPN
      route from each Upstream PEs). The advantage of using the Standby
      semantic is that, supposing that downstream PEs always advertise a
      Standby C-multicast route to the secondary Upstream PE, it allows to
      choose the protection level through a change of configuration on the
      secondary Upstream PE, without requiring any reconfiguration of all the
      downstream PEs.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="dups" title="Duplicate Packets">
      <t><xref target="RFC6513">Multicast VPN
      specifications</xref> impose that a PE only forwards to CEs the packets
      coming from the expected Upstream PE (Section 9.1 of <xref target="RFC6513"/>).</t>

      <t>We draw the reader's attention to the fact that the respect of
      this part of multicast VPN specifications is especially important when
      two distinct Upstream PEs are susceptible to forward the same traffic on
      P-tunnels at the same time in the steady state. That will be the case when
      "hot root standby" mode is used (<xref target="hot-standby"/>),
      and which can also be the case if procedures of <xref target="tunnel-status"/> are used and a) the rules determining
      the status of a tree are not the same on two distinct downstream PEs or
      b) the rule determining the status of a tree depends on conditions local
      to a PE (e.g., the PE-P upstream link being up).</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
    
    <section anchor="pe-standby-com-iana" title="Standby PE Community">
      <t>IANA is requested to allocate the BGP "Standby PE" community value (TBA1)
      from the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities
      registry using the First Come First Served registration policy.</t>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="iana-bfd-discr" title="BFD Discriminator">
     <t>This document defines a new BGP optional transitive attribute, called
   "BFD Discriminator". IANA is requested to allocate a codepoint (TBA2) in the "BGP Path
   Attributes" registry to the BFD Discriminator attribute.</t>
   <t>
   IANA is requested to create a new BFD Mode sub-registry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
   Parameters registry.
      The registration policies, per <xref target="RFC8126"/>, for
      this sub-registry are according to <xref target="iana-bfd-mode-reg"/>.
</t>
            <texttable anchor="iana-bfd-mode-reg" title="BFD Mode Sub-registry Registration Policies">
    <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='center'>Policy</ttcol>
     <c>0- 175</c>
    <c>IETF Review</c>
     <c>176 - 249</c>
         <c>First Come First Served</c>
      <c>250 - 254</c>
    <c>Experimental Use</c>
         <c>255</c>
    <c>IETF Review</c>
    </texttable> 
    
    <t>
   IANA is requested to make initial assignments according to <xref target="iana-bfd-mode-alloc-tbl"/>.
   </t>
   
         <texttable anchor="iana-bfd-mode-alloc-tbl" title="BFD Mode Sub-registry">
    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="center">Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
      <c>0</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
        <c>1</c>
    <c>P2MP BFD Session</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>2- 175</c>
    <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c></c>
     <c>176 - 249</c>
         <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c></c>
      <c>250 - 254</c>
    <c>Experimental Use</c>
    <c>This document</c>
         <c>255</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    </texttable> 
  
   </section>
   
   <section anchor="iana-bfd-attr-ext" title="BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type">
     <t>
   IANA is requested to create a new BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type sub-registry in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).
   The registration policies, per <xref target="RFC8126"/>, for
   this sub-registry are according to <xref target="iana-bfd-discr-ext-reg"/>.
   </t>
            <texttable anchor="iana-bfd-discr-ext-reg" title="BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type Sub-registry Registration Policies">
    <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='center'>Policy</ttcol>
     <c>0- 175</c>
    <c>IETF Review</c>
     <c>176 - 249</c>
         <c>First Come First Served</c>
      <c>250 - 254</c>
    <c>Experimental Use</c>
         <c>255</c>
    <c>IETF Review</c>
    </texttable> 
<t>
IANA is requested to make initial assignments according to <xref target="iana-bfd-discr-ext-tbl"/>.
   </t>
         <texttable anchor="iana-bfd-discr-ext-tbl" title="BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type Sub-registry">
    <ttcol align='left'>Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='center'>Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='left'>Reference</ttcol>
     <c>0</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    <c>1</c>
    <c>Source IP Address</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>2- 175</c>
    <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c></c>
     <c>176 - 249</c>
         <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c></c>
      <c>250 - 254</c>
    <c>Experimental Use</c>
    <c>This document</c>
         <c>255</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    </texttable> 
  
   </section>

    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
    This document describes procedures based on <xref target="RFC6513"/> and <xref target="RFC6514"/>
    and hence shares the security considerations respectively represented in these specifications.
     </t>
     <t>
This document uses P2MP BFD, as defined in <xref target="RFC8562"/>,
which, in turn, is based on <xref target="RFC5880"/>.
Security considerations relevant to each protocol are discussed in
the respective protocol specifications.
   An implementation that supports this specification MUST provide a
   mechanism to limit the overall amount of capacity used by the BFD traffic
   (as the combination of the number of active P2MP BFD sessions and the rate of
   BFD Control packets to process).
     </t>
             <t>
        The methods described in <xref target="tunnel-status-determination"/> may produce false-negative state changes
        that can be the trigger for an unnecessary convergence in the control plane, ultimately negatively impacting the multicast
        service provided by the VPN. An operator is expected to consider the network environment and use available
        controls of  the mechanism used to determine the status of a P-tunnel.
        </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">
      <t>The authors want to thank Greg Reaume, Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang, Martin Vigoureux, Adrian Farrel,
      and Zheng (Sandy) Zhang for their reviews,
         useful comments, and helpful suggestions.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Contributor Addresses">
      <t>
	Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
	<figure align="left">
	  <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
   Rahul Aggarwal
   Arktan

   Email: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com



   Nehal Bhau
   Cisco

   Email: NBhau@cisco.com



   Clayton Hassen
   Bell Canada
   2955 Virtual Way
   Vancouver
   CANADA

   Email: Clayton.Hassen@bell.ca



   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp  2018
   Belgium

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com



   Pradeep Jain
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: pradeep.jain@nokia.com



   Jayant Kotalwar
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: Jayant.Kotalwar@nokia.com


   Praveen Muley
   Nokia
   701 East Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   U.S.A.

   Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com



   Ray (Lei) Qiu
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   U.S.A.

   Email: rqiu@juniper.net



   Yakov Rekhter
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   U.S.A.

   Email: yakov@juniper.net



   Kanwar Singh
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   USA

   Email: kanwar.singh@nokia.com


	  ]]></artwork>
	</figure>
      </t>
    </section>



  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
   <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6513"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6514"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4875"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5880"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8562"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7606"?>
 <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126"?>
 <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4271"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">

    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4090"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7431"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4291"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.1122"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd"?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
