idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5015]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6514, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6514 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC6514, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-08-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (August 3, 2015) is 3186 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 5015' is mentioned on line 19, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC5015' is defined on line 310, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7582' is defined on line 315, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-bess-ir-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-02 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Z. Zhang 3 Internet-Draft Y. Rekhter 4 Updates: 6514 (if approved) Juniper Networks 5 Intended status: Standards Track A. Dolganow 6 Expires: February 4, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent 7 August 3, 2015 9 Simulating "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels" with Ingress Replication 10 draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-01.txt 12 Abstract 14 RFC 6513 described a method to support bidirectional C-flow using 15 "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels". This document specifiess how 16 partial mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels can be simulated with Ingress 17 Replication, instead of a real MP2MP tunnel. This enables a Service 18 Provider to use Ingress Replication to offer transparent BIDIR-PIM 19 [RFC 5015] service to its VPN customers. These specifications update 20 RFC6514. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2016. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.1. Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 70 1. Introduction 72 Section 11.2 of RFC 6513, "Partitioned Sets of PEs", describes two 73 methods of carrying bidirectional C-flow traffic over a provider core 74 without using the core as RPL or requiring Designated Forwarder 75 election. 77 With these two methods, all PEs of a particular VPN are separated 78 into partitions, with each partition being all the PEs that elect the 79 same PE as the Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. A PE must discard 80 bidirectional C-flow traffic from PEs that are not in the same 81 partition as the PE itself. 83 In particular, Section 11.2.3 of RFC 6513, "Partial Mesh of MP2MP 84 P-Tunnels", guarantees the above discard behavior without using an 85 extra PE Distinguisher label by having all PEs in the same partition 86 join a single MP2MP tunnel dedicated to that partition and use it to 87 transmit traffic. All traffic arriving on the tunnel will be from 88 PEs in the same partition, so it will be always accepted. 90 RFC 6514 specifies BGP encodings and procedures used to implement 91 MVPN as specified in RFC 6513, while the details related to MP2MP 92 tunnels are specified in [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08]. 94 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08] assumes that an MP2MP P-tunnel is 95 realized either via PIM-Bidir, or via MP2MP mLDP. Each of them would 96 require signaling and state not just on PEs, but on the P routers as 97 well. This document describes how the MP2MP tunnel can be simulated 98 with a mesh of P2MP tunnels, each of which is instantiated by Ingress 99 Replication [I-D.ietf-bess-ir]. This does not require each PE on the 100 MP2MP tunnel to send an S-PMSI A-D route for the P2MP tunnel that the 101 PE is the root for, nor does it require each PE to send a Leaf A-D 102 route to the root of each P2MP tunnel in the mesh. 104 With the use of Ingress Replication,this scheme has both the 105 advantages and the disadvantages of Ingress Replication in general. 107 1.1. Terminology 109 This document uses terminology from [RFC6513], [RFC6514], and 110 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08]. 112 2. Requirements Language 114 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 115 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 116 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 118 3. Operation 120 In following sections, the originator of an S-PMSI A-D route or Leaf 121 A-D route is determined from the "originating router's IP address" 122 field of the corresponding route. 124 3.1. Control State 126 If a PE, say PEx, is connected to a site of a given VPN, and PEx's 127 next hop interface to some C-RPA is a VRF interface, then PEx MUST 128 advertises a (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, regardless of whether 129 it has any local Bidir-PIM join states corresponding to the C-RPA 130 learned from its CEs. It MAY also advertise one or more (C-*,C-G- 131 BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, just like how any other S-PMSI A-D routes 132 are triggered. Here the C-G-BIDIR refers to a C-G where G is a 133 Bidir-PIM group, and the corresponding C-RPA is in the site that the 134 PEx connects to. For example, the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes 135 could be triggered when the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) traffic rate goes above 136 a threshold (this may require measuring the traffic in both 137 directions, due to the nature of Bidir-PIM), and fan-out could also 138 be taken into account. 140 The S-PMSI A-D routes include a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) with 141 tunnel type set to Ingress Replication, with Leaf Information 142 Required flag set, with a downstream allocated MPLS label that other 143 PEs in the same partition MUST use when sending relevant C-bidir 144 flows to this PE, and with the Tunnel Identifier field in the PTA set 145 to a routable address of the originator. The label may be shared 146 with other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for 147 extranet [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*- 148 BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE 149 can optionally share a label. 151 If some other PE, PEy, receives and imports into one of its VRFs any 152 (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies an IR P-tunnel, 153 and the VRF has any local Bidir-PIM join state that PEy has received 154 from its CEs, and if PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA 155 for those states, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route in response. 156 Or, if PEy has received and imported into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-*- 157 BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from PEx before, then upon receiving in the 158 VRF any local Bidir-PIM join state from its CEs with PEx being the 159 Upstream PE for those states' C-RPA, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D 160 route. 162 The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, 163 except that the Route Targets are set to the same value as in the 164 corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be 165 imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. 167 This is irrespective of whether the originator of the S-PMSI A-D 168 route is the Upstream PE or not from a receiving PE's perspective. 169 The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by PEy MUST be 170 allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic arrives with 171 that label, the traffic can associated with the partition 172 (represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with other 173 P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet 174 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and 175 (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can 176 optionally share a label. 178 Note that RFC 6514 requires a PE/ASBR take no action with regard to a 179 Leaf A-D route unless that Leaf A-D route carries an IP Address 180 Specific RT identifying the PE/ASBR. This document removes that 181 requirement when the route key of a Leaf A-D route identifies a 182 (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI. 184 To speed up convergence (so that PEy starts receiving traffic from 185 its new Upstream PE immediately instead of waiting until the new Leaf 186 A-D route corresponding to the new Upstream PE is received by sending 187 PEs), PEy MAY advertise a Leaf A-D route even if does not choose PEx 188 as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. With that, it will receive traffic 189 from all PEs, but some will arrive with the label corresponding to 190 its choice of Upstream PE while some will arrive with a different 191 label, and the traffic in the latter case will be discarded. 193 Similar to the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) case, if PEy receives and imports into 194 one of its VRFs any (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA 195 specifies an IR P-tunnel, and PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt 196 the C-RPA, and it has corresponding local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state 197 that it has received from its CEs in the VRF, PEy MUST advertise a 198 Leaf A-D route in response. Or, if PEy has received and imported 199 into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route before, then 200 upon receiving its local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state from its CEs in 201 the VRF, it MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route. 203 The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, 204 except that the Route Targets are set to the same as in the 205 corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be 206 imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. 207 This is irrespective of whether the originator of the S-PMSI A-D 208 route is the Upstream PE or not from a receiving PE's perspective. 209 The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by PEy MUST be 210 allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic arrives with 211 that label, the traffic can associated with the partition 212 (represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with other 213 P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet 214 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and 215 (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can 216 optionally share a label. 218 Whenever the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is 219 withdrawn, or if PEy no longer chooses the originator PEx as its 220 Upstream PE wrt C-RPA and PEy only advertises Leaf A-D routes in 221 response to its Upstream PE's S-PMSI A-D route, or if relevant local 222 join state is pruned, PEy MUST withdraw the corresponding Leaf A-D 223 route. 225 3.2. Forwarding State 227 The following specification regarding forwarding state matches the 228 "When an S-PMSI is a 'Match for Transmission'" and "When an S-PMSI is 229 a 'Match for Reception'" rules for "Flat Partitioning" method in 230 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08], except that the rules about 231 (C-*,C-*) are not applicable, because this document requires that 232 (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes are always originated for a VPN 233 that supports C-Bidir flows. 235 For the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and 236 imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA, or 237 if PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, PEy 238 maintains a (C-*,C-G-BIDR) forwarding state in the VRF, with the 239 Ingress Replication provider tunnel leaves being the originators of 240 the S-PMSI A-D route and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant 241 Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field contains the 242 same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI 243 A-D route advertised by the Upstream PE. 245 For the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and 246 imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt a C-RPA, or if 247 PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, it maintains 248 appropriate forwarding states in the VRF for the ranges of 249 bidirectional groups for which the C-RPA is responsible. The 250 provider tunnel leaves are the originators of the S-PMSI A-D route 251 and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant Leaf A-D routes are 252 the routes whose Route Key field contains the same information as the 253 MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route advertised by 254 the Upstream PE. This is for the so-called "Sender Only Branches" 255 where a router only has data to send upstream towards C-RPA but no 256 explicit join state for a particular bidirectional group. Note that 257 the traffic must be sent to all PEs (not just the Upstream PE) in the 258 partition, because they may have specific (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join states 259 that this PEy is not aware of, while there is no corresponding 260 (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D routes. 262 For a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state that a PEy has received from its CEs 263 in a VRF, if there is no corresponding (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D 264 route from its Upstream PE in the VRF, PEy maintains a corresponding 265 forwarding state in the VRF, with the provider tunnel leaves being 266 the originators of the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route and all 267 relevant Leaf-A-D routes (same as the above Sender Only Branch case). 268 The relevant Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field 269 contains the same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, 270 C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route originated by the Upstream PE. If there 271 is no (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from its Upstream PE either, 272 then the provider tunnel has an empty set of leaves and PEy does not 273 forward relevant traffic across the provider network. 275 4. Security Considerations 277 This document raises no new security issues. Security considerations 278 for the base protocol are covered in [RFC6514]. 280 5. IANA Considerations 282 This document has no IANA considerations. 284 This section should be removed by the RFC Editor prior to final 285 publication. 287 6. Acknowledgements 289 We would like to thank Eric Rosen for his comments, and suggestions 290 of some texts used in the document. 292 7. References 294 7.1. Normative References 296 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 297 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 298 RFC2119, March 1997, 299 . 301 [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ 302 BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, 303 February 2012, . 305 [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP 306 Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP 307 VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, 308 . 310 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 311 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 312 PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, 313 . 315 [RFC7582] Rosen, E., Wijnands, IJ., Cai, Y., and A. Boers, 316 "Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN): Using 317 Bidirectional P-Tunnels", RFC 7582, DOI 10.17487/RFC7582, 318 July 2015, . 320 7.2. Informative References 322 [I-D.ietf-bess-ir] 323 Rosen, E., Subramanian, K., and J. Zhang, "Ingress 324 Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", 325 draft-ietf-bess-ir-01 (work in progress), May 2015. 327 [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet] 328 Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y., and T. 329 Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs", 330 draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-02 (work in progress), 331 May 2015. 333 Authors' Addresses 335 Zhaohui Zhang 336 Juniper Networks 337 10 Technology Park Dr. 338 Westford, MA 01886 339 US 341 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 343 Yakov Rekhter 344 Juniper Networks 345 1194 North Mathilda Ave. 346 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 347 US 349 Email: yakov@juniper.net 351 Andrew Dolganow 352 Alcatel-Lucent 353 600 March Rd. 354 Ottawa, ON K2K 2E6 355 CANADA 357 Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com