idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 17, 2015) is 3114 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-01 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force L. Ginsberg, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Przygienda 5 Expires: April 19, 2016 Ericsson 6 S. Aldrin 7 Google 8 J. Zhang 9 Juniper Networks, Inc. 10 October 17, 2015 12 BIER support via ISIS 13 draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-01 15 Abstract 17 Specification of an ISIS extension to support BIER domains and sub- 18 domains. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] . 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2016. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 5.1. Enabling a BIER Sub-Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 5.2. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5.3. Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 5.4. Tree Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 5.5. Label Advertisements for MPLS encapsulated BIER sub- 71 domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 5.5.1. Special Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 5.6. BFR-id Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5.7. Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 6.1. BIER Info sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 6.3. Optional BIER sub-domain Tree Type sub-sub-TLV . . . . . 9 79 6.4. Optional BIER sub-domain BSL conversion sub-sub-TLV . . . 10 80 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 1. Introduction 87 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) 88 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02] defines an architecture where 89 all intended multicast receivers are encoded as bitmask in the 90 Multicast packet header within different encapsulations such as 91 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-02]. A router that receives 92 such a packet will forward the packet based on the Bit Position in 93 the packet header towards the receiver(s), following a precomputed 94 tree for each of the bits in the packet. Each receiver is 95 represented by a unique bit in the bitmask. 97 This document presents necessary extensions to the currently deployed 98 ISIS for IP [RFC1195] protocol to support distribution of information 99 necessary for operation of BIER domains and sub-domains. This 100 document defines a new TLV to be advertised by every router 101 participating in BIER signaling. 103 2. Terminology 105 Some of the terminology specified in 106 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02] is replicated here and extended 107 by necessary definitions: 109 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication (The overall architecture of 110 forwarding multicast using a Bit Position). 112 BIER-OL: BIER Overlay Signaling. (The method for the BFIR to learn 113 about BFER's). 115 BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index 116 Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR- 117 prefix in a BIER domain. 119 BFIR: Bit Forwarding Ingress Router (The ingress border router that 120 inserts the BM into the packet). 122 BFER: Bit Forwarding Egress Router. A router that participates in 123 Bit Index Forwarding as leaf. Each BFER must be a BFR. Each BFER 124 must have a valid BFR-id assigned. 126 BFT: Bit Forwarding Tree used to reach all BFERs in a domain. 128 BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table. 130 BMS: Bit Mask Set. Set containing bit positions of all BFER 131 participating in a set. 133 BMP: Bit Mask Position, a given bit in a BMS. 135 Invalid BMP: Unassigned Bit Mask Position, consisting of all 0s. 137 IGP signalled BIER domain: A BIER underlay where the BIER 138 synchronization information is carried in IGP. Observe that a 139 multi-topology is NOT a separate BIER domain in IGP. 141 BIER sub-domain: A further distinction within a BIER domain 142 identified by its unique sub-domain identifier. A BIER sub-domain 143 can support multiple BitString Lengths. 145 BFR-id: An optional, unique identifier for a BFR within a BIER sub- 146 domain. 148 Invalid BFR-id: Unassigned BFR-id, consisting of all 0s. 150 3. IANA Considerations 152 This document adds the following new sub-TLVs to the registry of sub- 153 TLVs for TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] and TLVs 135,236 154 [RFC5305],[RFC5308]. 156 Value: 32 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA) 158 Name: BIER Info 160 4. Concepts 162 4.1. BIER Domains and Sub-Domains 164 An ISIS signalled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of 165 distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within ISIS. 166 ISIS acts in such a case as the according BIER underlay. 168 Within such a domain, ISIS extensions are capable of carrying BIER 169 information for multiple BIER sub-domains. Each sub-domain is 170 uniquely identified by its subdomain-id and each subdomain can reside 171 in any of the ISIS topologies [RFC5120]. The mapping of sub-domains 172 to topologies is a local decision of each BFR currently but is 173 advertised throughout the domain to ensure routing consistency. 175 Each BIER sub-domain has as its unique attributes the encapsulation 176 used and the type of tree it is using to forward BIER frames 177 (currently always SPF). Additionally, per supported bitstring length 178 in the sub-domain, each router will advertise the necessary label 179 ranges to support it. 181 This RFC introduces a sub-TLV in the extended reachability TLVs to 182 distribute such information about BIER sub-domains. To satisfy the 183 requirements for BIER prefixes per 184 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02] additional information will be 185 carried in [I-D.draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-01]. 187 5. Procedures 188 5.1. Enabling a BIER Sub-Domain 190 A given sub-domain with identifier SD with supported bitstring 191 lengths MLs in a multi-topology MT [RFC5120] is denoted further as 192 and dos not have to be advertised by by default by BFRs 193 to preserve the scaling of the protocol (i.e. ISIS carries no TLVs 194 containing any of the elements related to ). The 195 advertisement may be triggered e.g. by a first BIER sub-TLV 196 (Section 6.1) containing advertised into the area. The 197 specific trigger itself is outside the scope of this RFC but can be 198 for example a VPN desiring to initiate a BIER sub-domain as MI-PMSI 199 [RFC6513] tree or a pre-configured BFER (since BFERs will always 200 advertise the BIER sub-TLV to make sure they can be reached). It is 201 outside the scope of this document to describe what trigger for a 202 router capable of participating in is used to start the 203 origination of the necessary information to join into it. 205 5.2. Multi Topology and Sub-Domain 207 All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise 208 a sub-domain within the same multi-topology. A router discovering a 209 sub-domain advertised within a topology that is different from its 210 own MUST report a misconfiguration of a specific sub-domain. Each 211 router MUST compute BFTs for a sub-domain using only routers 212 advertising it in the same multi-topology. 214 5.3. Encapsulation 216 All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the 217 same encapsulation for a given . A router discovering 218 encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a 219 misconfiguration of a specific . Each router MUST compute 220 BFTs for using only routers having the same encapsulation as 221 its own advertised encapsulation in BIER sub-TLV for . 223 5.4. Tree Type 225 All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the 226 same tree type for a given . In case of mismatch the behavior 227 is analogous to Section 5.3. 229 5.5. Label Advertisements for MPLS encapsulated BIER sub-domains 231 Each router MAY advertise within the BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub- 232 TLV (Section 6.2) of a BIER Info sub-TLV (Section 6.1) for 233 (denoted as TLV) for every supported bitstring length a valid 234 starting label value and a non-zero range length. It MUST advertise 235 at least one valid label value and a non-zero range length for the 236 required bitstring lengths per [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02] 237 in case it has computed itself as being on the BFT rooted at any of 238 the BFRs with valid BFR-ids (except itself if it does NOT have a 239 valid BFR-id) participating in . 241 A router MAY decide to not advertise the BIER Info sub-TLV 242 (Section 6.1) for if it does not want to participate in the 243 sub-domain due to resource constraints, label space optimization, 244 administrative configuration or any other reasons. 246 5.5.1. Special Consideration 248 A router that desires to participate in MUST advertise for 249 each bitstring length it supports in a label range size that 250 guarantees to cover the maximum BFR-id injected into (which 251 implies a certain maximum set id per bitstring length as described in 252 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02]). Any router that violates 253 this condition MUST be excluded from BIER BFTs for . 255 5.6. BFR-id Advertisements 257 Each BFER MAY advertise with its TLV the BFR-id that it has 258 administratively chosen. 260 If a router discovers that two BFRs it can reach advertise the same 261 value for BFR-id for , it MUST report a misconfiguration and 262 disregard those routers for all BIER calculations and procedures for 263 to align with [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02]. It is 264 worth observing that based on this procedure routers with colliding 265 BFR-id assignments in MAY still act as BFIRs in but 266 will be never able to receive traffic from other BFRs in . 268 5.7. Flooding 270 BIER domain information SHOULD change and force flooding 271 infrequently. Especially, the router SHOULD make every possible 272 attempt to bundle all the changes necessary to sub-domains and ranges 273 advertised with those into least possible updates. 275 6. Packet Formats 277 All ISIS BIER information is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 278 [RFC5120] and TLVs 135,236 [RFC5305], [RFC5308]. 280 6.1. BIER Info sub-TLV 282 This sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER sub-domains that 283 the router participates in as BFR. It can repeat multiple times for 284 different multi-topology and sub-domain combinations. 286 The sub-TLV carries a single combination followed by optional 287 sub-sub-TLVs specified within its context such as e.g. BIER MPLS 288 Encapsulation per Section 6.2. If the same combination is 289 advertised more than once, only the first occurence of the sub-TLV 290 MUST be used. 292 On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router 293 SHOULD signal a misconfiguration condition. Further results are 294 unspecified unless described in the according section of this RFC: 296 o The subdomain-id MUST be included only within a single topology. 298 0 1 2 3 299 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 1 300 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 301 | Type | Length | 302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 303 | Reserved | subdomain-id | BFR-id | 304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 306 Type: as indicated in IANA section. 308 Length: 1 octet. 310 Reserved: reserved, must be 0 on transmission, ignored on reception. 311 May be used in future versions. 8 bits 313 subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain. 1 octet 315 BFR-id: A 2 octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in 316 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02]. If set to the invalid BFR- 317 id advertising router is not owning a BFR-id in the sub-domain. 319 6.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV 321 This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER MPLS 322 encapsulation and the necessary label ranges per bitstring length for 323 a certain and is carried within the BIER Info sub-TLV 324 (Section 6.1) that the router participates in as BFR. 326 On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router 327 SHOULD signal a misconfiguration condition. Further results are by 328 default unspecified unless explicitly described: 330 o The sub-sub-TLV MUST be included once AND ONLY once within the 331 sub-TLV. If such a sub-sub-TLV is included more than once, only 332 the first instance MUST be processed. 334 o Label ranges within the sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT overlap, otherwise 335 the whole sub-sub-TLV MUST be disregarded and the violating 336 routers are treated per further procedures in Section 5.3. 338 o Bitstring lengths within the sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT repeat, 339 otherwise the whole sub-sub-TLV MUST be disregarded and the 340 violating routers are treated per further procedures in 341 Section 5.3. 343 o The sub-sub-TLV MUST include the required bitstring lengths 344 encoded in precisely the same way as in 345 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02]. 347 o All label range sizes MUST be greater than 0. 349 o All labels MUST represent valid label values, otherwise the whole 350 sub-sub-TLV MUST be disregarded and the violating routers are 351 treated per further procedures in Section 5.3. 353 0 1 2 3 354 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 1 355 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 356 | Type | Length | 357 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 | Lbl Range Size|BS Len | Label | 359 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 360 ~~ (number repetitions derived from TLV length) ~~ 361 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 362 | Lbl Range Size|BS Len | Label | 363 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 Type: value of 0 indicating MPLS encapsulation. 367 Length: 1 octet. 369 Local BitString Length (BS Len): Bitstring length for the label 370 range that this router is advertising per 371 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-02]. 4 bits. 373 Label Range Size: Number of labels in the range used on 374 encapsulation for this BIER sub-domain for this bitstring length, 375 1 octet. This MUST never be advertised as 0 (zero) and otherwise, 376 this sub-sub-TLV must be treated as if not present for BFT 377 calculations and a misconfiguration SHOULD be reported by the 378 receiving router. 380 Label: First label of the range used on encapsulation for this BIER 381 sub-domain for this bitstring length, 20 bits. The label is used 382 for example by [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-02] to 383 forward traffic to sets of BFERs. 385 6.3. Optional BIER sub-domain Tree Type sub-sub-TLV 387 This sub-sub-TLV carries the information of the BIER tree type for a 388 combination. It is carried within the BIER Info sub-TLV 389 (Section 6.1) that the router participates in as BFR. This sub-sub- 390 TLV is optional and its absence has the same semantics as its 391 presence with Tree Type value 0 (SPF). BIER implementation following 392 this version of the RFC SHOULD NOT advertise this TLV. 394 On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router 395 implementing this RFC SHOULD signal a misconfiguration condition. 396 Further results are unspecified unless described further: 398 o The sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT be included more than once. 400 o The Tree Type MUST be 0 (SPF). 402 0 1 2 3 403 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 1 404 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 405 | Type | Length | 406 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 407 | Tree Type | 408 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 409 | Tree Type specific opaque data| 410 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 411 ~~ up to TLV Length ~~ 412 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 413 | Tree Type specific opaque data| 414 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 416 Type: value of 1 indicating BIER Tree Type. 418 Length: 1 octet. 420 Tree Type: The only supported value in this specification is 0 and 421 indicates that BIER uses normal SPF computed reachability to 422 construct BIFT. BIER implementation following this RFC MUST 423 ignore the node for purposes of the sub-domain if this 424 field has any value except 0. 426 Tree type specific opaque data: Opaque data up to the length of the 427 TLV carrying tree type specific parameters. For Tree Type 0 (SPF) 428 no such data is included and therefore TLV Length is 1. 430 6.4. Optional BIER sub-domain BSL conversion sub-sub-TLV 432 This sub-sub-TLV indicates whether the BFR is capable of imposing a 433 different Bit String Length (BSL) than the one it received in a BIER 434 encapsulated packet. Such a capability may allow future, advanced 435 tree types which ensure simple migration procedures from one BSL to 436 another in a given or prevent stable blackholes in scenarios 437 where not all routers support the same set of BSLs in a given 438 . It is carried within the BIER Info sub-TLV (Section 6.1). 439 This sub-sub-TLV is optional and its absence indicates that the 440 router is NOT capable of imposing different BSLs but will always 441 forward the packet with the BSL unchanged. 443 On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router 444 implementing this RFC SHOULD signal a misconfiguration condition. 445 Further results are unspecified unless described further: 447 o The sub-sub-TLV MUST NOT be included more than once. 449 0 1 2 3 450 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 1 451 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 452 | Type | Length | 453 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 455 Type: value of 2 indicating BIER BSL conversion. 457 Length: 1 octet. 459 7. Security Considerations 461 Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV 462 permutations do not result in errors which cause hard protocol 463 failures. 465 8. Acknowledgements 467 The RFC is aligned with the 468 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00] draft as far as the 469 protocol mechanisms overlap. 471 Many thanks for comments from (in no particular order) Hannes 472 Gredler, Ijsbrand Wijnands, Peter Psenak and Chris Bowers. 474 9. Normative References 476 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02] 477 Wijnands et al., IJ., "Stateless Multicast using Bit Index 478 Explicit Replication Architecture", internet-draft draft- 479 ietf-bier-architecture-02.txt, July 2015. 481 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-02] 482 Wijnands et al., IJ., "Bit Index Explicit Replication 483 using MPLS encapsulation", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier- 484 mpls-encapsulation-02.txt, Aug 2015. 486 [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00] 487 Psenak et al., P., "OSPF Extension for Bit Index Explicit 488 Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier- 489 extensions-00.txt, October 2014. 491 [I-D.draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-01] 492 Ginsberg et al., U., "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended 493 IP and IPv6 Reachability", internet-draft draft-ietf-isis- 494 prefix-attributes-01.txt, June 2015. 496 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 497 dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, 498 December 1990, . 500 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 501 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 502 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 503 . 505 [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi 506 Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to 507 Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, 508 DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, 509 . 511 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 512 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 513 2008, . 515 [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, 516 DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008, 517 . 519 [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ 520 BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 521 2012, . 523 Authors' Addresses 525 Les Ginsberg (editor) 526 Cisco Systems 527 510 McCarthy Blvd. 528 Milpitas, CA 95035 529 USA 531 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com 532 Tony Przygienda 533 Ericsson 534 300 Holger Way 535 San Jose, CA 95134 536 USA 538 Email: antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com 540 Sam Aldrin 541 Google 542 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 543 Mountain View, CA 544 USA 546 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 548 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang 549 Juniper Networks, Inc. 550 10 Technology Park Drive 551 Westford, MA 01886 552 USA 554 Email: zzhang@juniper.net