idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-l3vpn-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 draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6514, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. 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 (July 1, 2014) is 3585 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5015' is defined on line 303, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir' is defined on line 307, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.rosen-l3vpn-ir' is defined on line 315, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-rosen-l3vpn-ir-01 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Zhang 3 Internet-Draft Rekhter 4 Updates: 6514 (if approved) Juniper Networks 5 Intended status: Standards Track Dolganow 6 Expires: January 2, 2015 Alcatel-Lucent 7 July 1, 2014 9 Simulating "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels" with Ingress Replication 10 draft-ietf-l3vpn-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 describes 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 service to its VPN customers. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.1. Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.2. Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 1. Introduction 71 Section 11.2 of RFC 6513, "Partitioned Sets of PEs", describes two 72 methods of carrying bidirectional C-flow traffic over a provider core 73 without using the core as RPL or requiring Designated Forwarder 74 election. 76 With these two methods, all PEs of a particular VPN are separated 77 into partitions, with each partition being all the PEs that elect the 78 same PE as the Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. A PE must discard 79 bidirectional C-flow traffic from PEs that are not in the same 80 partition as the PE itself. 82 In particular, Section 11.2.3 of RFC 6513, "Partial Mesh of MP2MP 83 P-Tunnels", guarantees the above discard behavior without using an 84 extra PE Distinguisher label by having all PEs in the same partition 85 join a single MP2MP tunnel dedicated to that partition and use it to 86 transmit traffic. All traffic arriving on the tunnel will be from 87 PEs in the same partition, so it will be always accepted. 89 RFC 6514 specifies BGP encodings and procedures used to implement 90 MVPN as specified in RFC 6513, while the details related to MP2MP 91 tunnels are specified in [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08]. 93 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08] assumes that an MP2MP P-tunnel is 94 realized either via PIM-Bidir, or via MP2MP mLDP. Each of them would 95 require signaling and state not just on PEs, but on the P routers as 96 well. This document describes how the MP2MP tunnel can be simulated 97 with a mesh of P2MP tunnels, each of which is instantiated by Ingress 98 Replication. This does not require each PE on the MP2MP tunnel to 99 send an S-PMSI A-D route for the P2MP tunnel that the PE is the root 100 for, nor does it require each PE to send a Leaf A-D route to the root 101 of each P2MP tunnel in the mesh. 103 With the use of Ingress Replication,this scheme has both the 104 advantages and the disadvantages of Ingress Replication in general. 106 1.1. Terminology 108 This document uses terminology from [RFC6513], [RFC6514], and 109 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08]. 111 2. Requirements Language 113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 115 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 117 3. Operation 119 In following sections, the originator of an S-PMSI A-D route or Leaf 120 A-D route is determined from the "originating router's IP address" 121 field of the corresponding route. 123 3.1. Control State 125 If a PE, say PEx, is connected to a site of a given VPN, and PEx's 126 next hop interface to some C-RPA is a VRF interface, then PEx MUST 127 advertises a (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, regardless of whether 128 it has any local Bidir-PIM join states corresponding to the C-RPA 129 learned from its CEs. It MAY also advertise one or more (C-*,C-G- 130 BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, just like how any other S-PMSI A-D routes 131 are triggered. Here the C-G-BIDIR refers to a C-G where G is a 132 Bidir-PIM group, and the corresponding C-RPA is in the site that the 133 PEx connects to. For example, the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes 134 could be triggered when the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) traffic rate goes above 135 a threshold, and fan-out could also be taken into account. Note that 136 this requires measuring the traffic in both directions, due to the 137 nature of Bidir-PIM. 139 The S-PMSI A-D routes include a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) with 140 tunnel type set to Ingress Replication, with Leaf Information 141 Required flag set, with a downstream allocated MPLS label that other 142 PEs in the same partition MUST use when sending relevant C-bidir 143 flows to this PE, and with the Tunnel Identifier field in the PTA set 144 to a routable address of the originator. The label may be shared 145 with other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for 146 extranet. For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) 147 S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can optionally share a 148 label. 150 If some other PE, PEy, receives and imports into one of its VRFs any 151 (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies an IR P-tunnel, 152 and the VRF has any local Bidir-PIM join state that PEy has received 153 from its CEs, and if PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA 154 for those states, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route in response. 155 Or, if PEy has received and imported into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-*- 156 BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from PEx before, then upon receiving in the 157 VRF any local Bidir-PIM join state from its CEs with PEx being the 158 Upstream PE for those states' C-RPA, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D 159 route. 161 The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, 162 except that the Route Targets are set to the same value as in the 163 corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be 164 imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. 166 This is irrespective of whether from a receiving PE, PEz's 167 perspective PEx (originator of the S-PMSI A-D route) is the Upstream 168 PE or not. The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by 169 PEy MUST be allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic 170 arrives with that label, the traffic can associated with the 171 partition (represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with 172 other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet. 173 For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D 174 routes originated by a given PE can optionally share a label. 176 Note that RFC 6514 requires a PE/ASBR take no action with regard to a 177 Leaf A-D route unless that Leaf A-D route carries an IP Address 178 Specific RT identifying the PE/ASBR. This document removes that 179 requirement when the route key of a Leaf A-D route identifies a 180 (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI. 182 To speed up convergence (so that PEy starts receiving traffic from 183 its new Upstream PE immediately instead of waiting until the new Leaf 184 A-D route corresponding to the new Upstream PE is received by sending 185 PEs), PEy MAY advertise a Leaf A-D route even if does not choose PEx 186 as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. With that, it will receive traffic 187 from all PEs, but some will arrive with the label corresponding to 188 its choice of Upstream PE while some will arrive with a different 189 label, and the traffic in the latter case will be discarded. 191 Similar to the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) case, if PEy receives and imports into 192 one of its VRFs any (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA 193 specifies an IR P-tunnel, and PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt 194 the C-RPA, and it has corresponding local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state 195 that it has received from its CEs in the VRF, PEy MUST advertise a 196 Leaf A-D route in response. Or, if PEy has received and imported 197 into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route before, then 198 upon receiving its local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state from its CEs in 199 the VRF, it MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route. 201 The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, 202 except that the Route Targets are set to the same as in the 203 corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be 204 imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. 205 This is irrespective of whether from the receiving PE, PEz's 206 perspective PEx (originator of the S-PMSI A-D route) is the Upstream 207 PE or not. The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by 208 PEy MUST be allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic 209 arrives with that label, the traffic can associated with the 210 partition (represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with 211 other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet. 212 For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D 213 routes originated by a given PE can optionally share a label. 215 Whenever the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is 216 withdrawn, or if PEy no longer chooses the originator PEx as its 217 Upstream PE wrt C-RPA and PEy only advertises Leaf A-D routes in 218 response to its Upstream PE's S-PMSI A-D route, or if relevant local 219 join state is pruned, PEy MUST withdraw the corresponding Leaf A-D 220 route. 222 3.2. Forwarding State 224 The following specification regarding forwarding state matches the 225 "When an S-PMSI is a 'Match for Transmission'" and "When an S-PMSI is 226 a 'Match for Reception'" rules for "Flat Partitioning" method in 227 [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08], except that the rules about 228 (C-*,C-*) are not applicable, because this document requires that 229 (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes are always originated for a VPN 230 that supports C-Bidir flows. 232 For the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and 233 imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA, or 234 if PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, PEy 235 maintains a (C-*,C-G-BIDR) forwarding state in the VRF, with the 236 Ingress Replication provider tunnel leaves being the originators of 237 the S-PMSI A-D route and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant 238 Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field contains the 239 same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI 240 A-D route advertised by the Upstream PE. 242 For the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and 243 imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt a C-RPA, or if 244 PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, it maintains 245 appropriate forwarding states in the VRF for the ranges of 246 bidirectional groups for which the C-RPA is responsible. The 247 provider tunnel leaves are the originators of the S-PMSI A-D route 248 and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant Leaf A-D routes are 249 the routes whose Route Key field contains the same information as the 250 MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route advertised by 251 the Upstream PE. This is for the so-called "Sender Only Branches" 252 where a router only has data to send upstream towards C-RPA but no 253 explicit join state for a particular bidirectional group. Note that 254 the traffic must be sent to all PEs (not just the Upstream PE) in the 255 partition, because they may have specific (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join states 256 that this PEy is not aware of, while there is no corresponding 257 (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D routes. 259 For a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state that a PEy has received from its CEs 260 in a VRF, if there is no corresponding (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D 261 route from its Upstream PE in the VRF, PEy maintains a corresponding 262 forwarding state in the VRF, with the provider tunnel leaves being 263 the originators of the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route and all 264 relevant Leaf-A-D routes (same as the above Sender Only Branch case). 265 The relevant Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field 266 contains the same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, 267 C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route originated by the Upstream PE. If there 268 is no (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from its Upstream PE either, 269 then the provider tunnel has an empty set of leaves and PEy does not 270 forward relevant traffic across the provider network. 272 4. Security Considerations 274 This document raises no new security issues. Security considerations 275 for the base protocol are covered in [RFC6514]. 277 5. IANA Considerations 279 This document has no IANA considerations. 281 This section should be removed by the RFC Editor prior to final 282 publication. 284 6. Acknowledgements 286 We would like to thank Eric Rosen for his comments, and suggestions 287 of some texts used in the document. 289 7. References 291 7.1. Normative References 293 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 294 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 296 [RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP 297 VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012. 299 [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP 300 Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP 301 VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012. 303 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 304 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 305 PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007. 307 [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir] 308 Rosen, E., Wijnands, I., Cai, Y., and A. Boers, "MVPN: 309 Using Bidirectional P-Tunnels", 310 draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-08 (work in progress), 311 June 2014. 313 7.2. Informative References 315 [I-D.rosen-l3vpn-ir] 316 Rosen, E., Subramanian, K., and J. Zhang, "Ingress 317 Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", 318 draft-rosen-l3vpn-ir-01 (work in progress), April 2014. 320 Authors' Addresses 322 Jeffrey Zhang 323 Juniper Networks 324 10 Technology Park Dr. 325 Westford, MA 01886 326 US 328 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 330 Yakov Rekhter 331 Juniper Networks 332 1194 North Mathilda Ave. 333 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 334 US 336 Email: yakov@juniper.net 338 Andrew Dolganow 339 Alcatel-Lucent 340 600 March Rd. 341 Ottawa, ON K2K 2E6 342 CANADA 344 Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com