< draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-00.txt		draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-01.txt >
	Internet Engineering Task Force E. Rosen, Ed.		Internet Engineering Task Force E. Rosen, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track M. Sivakumar		Intended status: Standards Track M. Sivakumar
	Expires: October 29, 2015 IJ. Wijnands		Expires: January 7, 2016 IJ. Wijnands
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	S. Aldrin		S. Aldrin
	Huawei Technologies		Google, Inc.
	A. Dolganow		A. Dolganow
	Alcatel-Lucent		Alcatel-Lucent
	T. Przygienda		T. Przygienda
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	April 27, 2015		July 6, 2015
	Multicast VPN Using BIER		Multicast VPN Using BIER
	draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-00		draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) specifications require		The Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) specifications require
	the use of multicast tunnels ("P-tunnels") that traverse a Service		the use of multicast tunnels ("P-tunnels") that traverse a Service
	Provider's backbone network. The P-tunnels are used for carrying		Provider's backbone network. The P-tunnels are used for carrying
	multicast traffic across the backbone. A variety of P-tunnel types		multicast traffic across the backbone. A variety of P-tunnel types
	are supported. Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new		are supported. Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new
	architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a		architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a
	"multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to		"multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Explicit Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.1. Using the LIR Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2. Using the LIR-pF Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Boundary . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC6513] and [RFC6514] specify the protocols and procedures that a		[RFC6513] and [RFC6514] specify the protocols and procedures that a
	Service Provider (SP) can use to provide Multicast Virtual Private		Service Provider (SP) can use to provide Multicast Virtual Private
	Network (MVPN) service to its customers. Multicast tunnels are		Network (MVPN) service to its customers. Multicast tunnels are
	created through an SP's backbone network; these are known as		created through an SP's backbone network; these are known as
	"P-tunnels". The P-tunnels are used for carrying multicast traffic		"P-tunnels". The P-tunnels are used for carrying multicast traffic
	across the backbone. The MVPN specifications allow the use of		across the backbone. The MVPN specifications allow the use of
	several different kinds of P-tunnel technology.		several different kinds of P-tunnel technology.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 27 ¶
	architecture provides protocols and procedures that allow the traffic		architecture provides protocols and procedures that allow the traffic
	of multiple MVPNs to be aggregated on a single P-tunnel. In this		of multiple MVPNs to be aggregated on a single P-tunnel. In this
	document, we specify how to use these multi-VPN aggregation		document, we specify how to use these multi-VPN aggregation
	procedures to enable BIER to transport traffic from multiple MVPNs.		procedures to enable BIER to transport traffic from multiple MVPNs.
	MVPN traffic must sometimes traverse more than one IGP domain,		MVPN traffic must sometimes traverse more than one IGP domain,
	whereas BIER only carries multicast traffic within a single IGP		whereas BIER only carries multicast traffic within a single IGP
	domain. However, the MVPN specifications allow P-tunnels to be		domain. However, the MVPN specifications allow P-tunnels to be
	"segmented", where the segmentation points may either be Autonomous		"segmented", where the segmentation points may either be Autonomous
	System Border Routers (ASBRs), as described in [RFC6514], or Area		System Border Routers (ASBRs), as described in [RFC6514], or Area
	Border Routers (ABRs), as described in [SEAMLESS_MCAST]. As long as		Border Routers (ABRs), as described in [RFC7524]. As long as the
	the segmentation points are capable of acting as BFIRs and BFERs,		segmentation points are capable of acting as BFIRs and BFERs, BIER
	BIER can be used to provide some or all of the segments of a		can be used to provide some or all of the segments of a P-tunnel.
	P-tunnel.
	This revision of the document does not specify the procedures		This revision of the document does not specify the procedures
	necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM. Those		necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM. Those
	procedures will be added in a future revision.		procedures will be added in a future revision.
	This document uses the following terminology from [BIER_ARCH]:		This document uses the following terminology from [BIER_ARCH]:
	o BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.		o BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.
	o BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.		o BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶
	originator of the route that is carrying this PTA. This will		originator of the route that is carrying this PTA. This will
	either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address. Whether		either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address. Whether
	the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total		the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total
	length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.		length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
	o "MPLS label". This field contains an upstream-assigned MPLS		o "MPLS label". This field contains an upstream-assigned MPLS
	label. It is assigned by the router that originates the BGP route		label. It is assigned by the router that originates the BGP route
	to which the PTA is attached. Constraints on the way in which the		to which the PTA is attached. Constraints on the way in which the
	originating router selects this label are discussed below.		originating router selects this label are discussed below.
	o "Leaf Info Required Bit". The setting of this bit depends upon		o "Flags". When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the bits in the PTA
	the type of route and the NLRI of the route that carries the PTA.		Flags field are meaningful. Details about the use of these bits
			can be found in Section 3.
	* In an I-PMSI A-D route or a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, the bit		* "Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)". This bit is introduced
	SHOULD be clear.		in [EXPLICIT_TRACKING]. A BFIR SHOULD NOT set this bit UNLESS
			it knows that all the BFERs in the BIER domain (or at least all
			the BFERs to which it needs to transmit) support this bit.
			(How this is known is outside the scope of this document.)
			This bit MAY be set in a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, but MUST
			NOT be set in I-PMSI A-D routes or in other S-PMSI A-D routes.
	* In other S-PMSI A-D routes, the bit SHOULD be set.		* "Leaf Info Required Bit". The setting of this bit depends upon
			the type of route and the NLRI of the route that carries the
			PTA.
			+ In an I-PMSI A-D route or a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, the
			bit SHOULD be clear, unless the LIR-pF bit has also been set
			(see above). This bit SHOULD also be clear in a (C-S,C-*)
			or (C-*,C-G) S-PMSI A-D route.
			+ In other S-PMSI A-D routes, the bit SHOULD be set.
	Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an I-PMSI or		Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an I-PMSI or
	S-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be distributed beyond the		S-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be distributed beyond the
	boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any routers that receive the		boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any routers that receive the
	route must be in the same BIER domain as the originator of the route.		route must be in the same BIER domain as the originator of the route.
	If the originator is in more than one BIER domain, the route must be		If the originator is in more than one BIER domain, the route must be
	distributed only within the BIER domain in which the BFR-Prefix in		distributed only within the BIER domain in which the BFR-Prefix in
	the PTA uniquely identifies the originator. As with all MVPN routes,		the PTA uniquely identifies the originator. As with all MVPN routes,
	distribution of these routes is controlled by the provisioning of		distribution of these routes is controlled by the provisioning of
	Route Targets.		Route Targets.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶
	functionality, and if the two routes originate from different		functionality, and if the two routes originate from different
	VRFs, then the respective PTAs of the two routes MUST contain		VRFs, then the respective PTAs of the two routes MUST contain
	different MPLS label values.		different MPLS label values.
	o If the ingress PE is supporting the "Extranet Separation" feature		o If the ingress PE is supporting the "Extranet Separation" feature
	of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [EXTRANET], section ), and if		of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [EXTRANET], section ), and if
	one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended		one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
	community and the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the		community and the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
	two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.		two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.
			o If segmented P-tunnels are being used, then the respective PTAs of
			the two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values, as long
			as the NLRIs are not identical. In this case, the MPLS label can
			be used by the BFER to identify the particular C-flow to which a
			data packet belongs, and this greatly simplifies the process of
			forwarding a received packet to its next P-tunnel segment. This
			is explained further in Section 4.
	When segmented P-tunnels are being used, an ABR or ASBR may receive,		When segmented P-tunnels are being used, an ABR or ASBR may receive,
	from a BIER domain, an x-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies "BIER".		from a BIER domain, an x-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies "BIER".
	This means that BIER is being used for one segment of a segmented		This means that BIER is being used for one segment of a segmented
	P-tunnel. The ABR/ASBR may in turn need to originate an x-PMSI A-D		P-tunnel. The ABR/ASBR may in turn need to originate an x-PMSI A-D
	route whose PTA identifies the next segment of the P-tunnel. The		route whose PTA identifies the next segment of the P-tunnel. The
	next segment may also be "BIER". Suppose an ASBR receives x-PMSI A-D		next segment may also be "BIER". Suppose an ASBR receives x-PMSI A-D
	routes R1 and R2, and as a result originates x-PMSI A-D routes R3 and		routes R1 and R2, and as a result originates x-PMSI A-D routes R3 and
	R4 respectively, where the PTAs of each of the four routes specify a		R4 respectively, where the PTAs of each of the four routes specify a
	BIER.. Then the PTAs of R3 and R4 MUST NOT specify the same MPLS		BIER. Then the PTAs of R3 and R4 MUST NOT specify the same MPLS
	label, UNLESS both of the following conditions hold:		label, UNLESS both of the following conditions hold:
	o R1 and R2 have the same "originating router" in their respective		o R1 and R2 have the same "originating router" in their respective
	NLRIs.		NLRIs.
	o R1 and R2 specify the same MPLS label in their respective PTAs.		o R1 and R2 specify the same MPLS label in their respective PTAs.
	3. Explicit Tracking		3. Explicit Tracking
	[Editor's note: The procedures of this section are still under
	discussion, and significant changes may be expected in the next
	revision.]
	When using BIER to transport an MVPN data packet through a BIER		When using BIER to transport an MVPN data packet through a BIER
	domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [BIER_ARCH]). The		domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [BIER_ARCH]). The
	BFIR must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be		BFIR must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
	delivered. This is done by using the explicit tracking mechanism		delivered. This can be done in either of two ways:
	specified in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].
			1. By using the explicit tracking mechanism based on the "Leaf Info
			Required" flag, as specified in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514], or
			2. By using the explicit tracking mechanism based on the LIR-pF flag
			as specified in [EXPLICIT_TRACKING]. This mechanism MAY be used
			if (and only if) segmented P-tunnels are not being used.
			3.1. Using the LIR Flag
	To determine the set of BFERs to which a given MVPN data packet needs		To determine the set of BFERs to which a given MVPN data packet needs
	to be delivered, the BFIR originating an S-PMSI A-D route sets the		to be delivered, the BFIR originating an S-PMSI A-D route sets the
	LIR bit in the route's PTA. Per [RFC6514], the BFERs will respond		LIR bit in the route's PTA. Per [RFC6514], the BFERs will respond
	with Leaf A-D routes. By matching the received Leaf A-D routes to		with Leaf A-D routes. By matching the received Leaf A-D routes to
	the originated S-PMSI A-D routes, the originator of the S-PMSI A-D		the originated S-PMSI A-D routes, the originator of the S-PMSI A-D
	route determines the set of BFERs that need to receive the multicast		route determines the set of BFERs that need to receive the multicast
	data flow (or flows) that is (are) identified in the NLRI of the of		data flow (or flows) that is (are) identified in the NLRI of the of
	the S-PMSI A-D route.		the S-PMSI A-D route.
	This requires that each BFIR originate an S-PMSI A-D route for each		This requires that each BFIR originate an S-PMSI A-D route for each
	C-flow for which it serves as BFIR. The BFIR MAY include, in each		C-flow for which it serves as BFIR. The BFIR MAY include, in each
	such route, a PTA as described in Section 2. However, if the BFIR		such route, a PTA as described in Section 2. However, if the BFIR
	has originated an I-PMSI A-D route or a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route		has originated an I-PMSI A-D route or a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route
	that "matches" (according to the rules of [RFC6625]) a particular		that "matches" (according to the rules of [RFC6625]) a particular
	C-flow, then it may do explicit tracking for that C-flow by		C-flow, then it may do explicit tracking for that C-flow by
	originating an S-PMSI A-D route for that C-flow, but including a PTA		originating an S-PMSI A-D route for that C-flow, but including a PTA
	that specifies "no tunnel type".		that specifies "no tunnel type".
			3.2. Using the LIR-pF Flag
			If segmented P-tunnels are not being used, the BFIR can determine the
			set of BFERs to which a given MVPN data packet needs to be delivered
			by originating a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, and by setting the LIR-
			pF flag in the PTA of that route. Per [EXPLICIT_TRACKING], each BFER
			will respond with one or more Leaf A-D routes, identifying the flows
			that it is expecting to receive from the BFIR that originated the
			(C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route.
			A BFIR MUST NOT use this method of finding the set of BFERs needing
			to receive a given C-flow unless it knows that all those BFERs
			support the LIR-pF flag. How this is known is outside the scope of
			this document.
			This option greatly reduces the number of S-PMSI A-D routes that a
			BFIR needs to originate; it now needs to originate only one such
			route, rather than one for each C-flow. However, it does not provide
			a way for the BFIR to assign a distinct label to each C-flow.
			Therefore it cannot be used when segmented P-tunnels are in use (see
			Section 4 for an explanation).
	4. Data Plane		4. Data Plane
	The MVPN application plays the role of the "multicast flow layer" as		The MVPN application plays the role of the "multicast flow layer" as
	described in [BIER_ARCH].		described in [BIER_ARCH].
			4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission
	To transmit an MVPN data packet, an ingress PE follows the rules of		To transmit an MVPN data packet, an ingress PE follows the rules of
	[RFC6625] to find the S-PMSI A-D route or I-PMSI A-D route that is a		[RFC6625] to find the S-PMSI A-D route or I-PMSI A-D route that is a
	"match for transmission" for that packet. (In applying the rules of		"match for transmission" for that packet. (In applying the rules of
	[RFC6625], any S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA specifying "no tunnel		[RFC6625], any S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA specifying "no tunnel
	information" is ignored.) If the matching route has a PTA specifying		information" is ignored.) If the matching route has a PTA specifying
	a "BIER", the (upstream-assigned) MPLS label from that PTA is pushed		a "BIER", the (upstream-assigned) MPLS label from that PTA is pushed
	on the packet's label stack. Then the packet is forwarded according		on the packet's label stack. Then the packet is encapsulated in a
	to the procedures of [BIER_ARCH] and [BIER_ENCAPS]. (See especially		BIER header and forwarded, according to the procedures of [BIER_ARCH]
	Section 4, "Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation", of		and [BIER_ENCAPS]. (See especially Section 4, "Imposing and
	[BIER_ENCAPS].)		Processing the BIER Encapsulation", of [BIER_ENCAPS].)
			In order to create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the
			BFIR must know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet. It
			determines this by finding all the Leaf A-D routes that correspond to
			the S-PMSI A-D route that is the packet's match for transmission.
			There are two different cases to consider:
			1. The S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for transmission carries a
			PTA that has the LIR flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag
			set.
			In this case, the corresponding Leaf A-D routes are those whose
			"route key" field is identical to the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
			route.
			2. The S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for transmission carries a
			PTA that has the LIR-pF flag.
			In this case, the corresponding Leaf A-D routes are those whose
			"route key" field is derived from the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
			route according to the procedures described in Section 5.2 of
			[EXPLICIT_TRACKING].
			4.2. Disposition
			The procedures for handling a received BIER packet at BFER depend on
			whether the BFER is an egress PE for the packet. A BFER can tell
			whether it is an egress PE for a given BIER packet by examining the
			MPLS label that the packet is carrying immediately after the BIER
			header. This will be an upstream-assigned label (from the BFIR) that
			has been advertised in the PTA of an S-PMSI A-D route.
			Note that if segmented P-tunnels are in use, a BFER might be a
			P-tunnel segmentation border router rather than an egress PE, or a
			BFER might be both an egress PE and a P-tunnel segmentation border
			router.
			Depending upon the role of the BFER for given packet, it may need to
			follow the procedures of Section 4.2.1, the procedures of
			Section 4.2.2, or both.
			4.2.1. At a BFER that is an Egress PE
	When a BFER receives an MVPN multicast data packet that has been		When a BFER receives an MVPN multicast data packet that has been
	BIER-encapsulated, the BIER layer passes the following information to		BIER-encapsulated, it determines from the MPLS label at the top of
	the multicast flow layer:		the packet's label stack whether it is an egress PE for the packet or
			not. If it is an egress PE, the BIER layer passes the following
			information to the multicast flow layer:
	o The BFR-prefix corresponding to the sub-domain-id and BFIR-id in		o The BFR-prefix corresponding to the sub-domain-id and BFIR-id in
	the BIER header.		the BIER header.
	o The "payload", which is an MPLS packet whose top label is an		o The "payload", which is an MPLS packet whose top label is an
	upstream-assigned label. The BFR-prefix provides the "context" in		upstream-assigned label. The BFR-prefix provides the "context" in
	which the upstream-assigned label is interpreted.		which the upstream-assigned label is interpreted.
	Note that per [RFC5331], the context for an upstream-assigned		Note that per [RFC5331], the context for an upstream-assigned
	label is the IP address of the label assigner, which in this case		label is the IP address of the label assigner, which in this case
	is the BFR-prefix of the BFIR.		is the BFR-prefix of the BFIR.
			4.2.2. At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Boundary
			When segmented P-tunnels are being used, a BFER that receives a BIER-
			encapsulated MVPN multicast data packet may need to be forwarded on
			its next P-tunnel segment. The choice of the next P-tunnel segment
			for the packet depends upon the C-flow to which the packet belongs.
			Since the BFIR assigns a distinct upstream-assigned MPLS label for
			each C-flow, the BFER can select the proper "next P-tunnel segment"
			for a given packet simply by looking up the upstream-assigned label
			that immediately follows the BIER header. (If the BFIR had not
			assigned a distinct label to each C-flow, the BFER would need to
			maintain all the state from the Multicast Flow Overlay in order to
			select the next P-tunnel segment.)
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	The authors wish to thank Jeffrey Zhang for his ideas and		The authors wish to thank Jeffrey Zhang for his ideas and
	contributions to this work.		contributions to this work.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to assign a value for "BIER" from the "P-Multicast		IANA is requested to assign a value for "BIER" from the "P-Multicast
	Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry. The		Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry. The
	reference should be this document.		reference should be this document.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 15 ¶
	[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP		[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
	Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP		Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
	VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.		VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.
	[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Hendrickx, W., and R. Qiu,		[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Hendrickx, W., and R. Qiu,
	"Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes", RFC		"Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes", RFC
	6625, May 2012.		6625, May 2012.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[EXPLICIT_TRACKING]
			Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., and Z. Zhang,
			"Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast
			VPN", internet-draft draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-00,
			March 2015.
	[EXTRANET]		[EXTRANET]
	Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP		Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y., and T.
	MPLS VPNs", internet-draft draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-		Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs", internet-
	01, April 2015.		draft draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-02, May 2015.
	[SEAMLESS_MCAST]		[RFC7524] Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Morin, T.,
	Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Morin, T.,		Grosclaude, I., Leymann, N., and S. Saad, "Inter-Area
	Grosclaude, I., Leymann, N., and S. Saad, "Inter-Area P2MP		Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths
	Segmented LSPs", internet-draft draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-		(LSPs)", RFC 7524, May 2015.
	mcast-17, February 2015.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Eric C. Rosen (editor)		Eric C. Rosen (editor)
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	10 Technology Park Drive		10 Technology Park Drive
	Westford, Massachusetts 01886		Westford, Massachusetts 01886
	United States		United States
	Email: erosen@juniper.net		Email: erosen@juniper.net
	skipping to change at page 9, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 4 ¶
	Email: erosen@juniper.net		Email: erosen@juniper.net
	Mahesh Sivakumar		Mahesh Sivakumar
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	510 McCarthy Blvd		510 McCarthy Blvd
	Milpitas, California 95035		Milpitas, California 95035
	United States		United States
	Email: masivaku@cisco.com		Email: masivaku@cisco.com
	IJsbrand Wijnands		IJsbrand Wijnands
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	De Kleetlaan 6a		De Kleetlaan 6a
	Diegem 1831		Diegem 1831
	Belgium		Belgium
	Email: ice@cisco.com		Email: ice@cisco.com
	Sam K Aldrin		Sam K Aldrin
	Huawei Technologies		Google, Inc.
	2330 Central Express Way		1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
	Santa Clara, California		Mountain View, California
	United States		United States
	Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com		Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
	Andrew Dolganow		Andrew Dolganow
	Alcatel-Lucent		Alcatel-Lucent
	600 March Rd.		600 March Rd.
	Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6		Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6
	Canada		Canada
	Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com		Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com
	Tony Przygienda		Tony Przygienda
	Ericsson		Ericsson
End of changes. 25 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		166 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/