RFC 7524
Inter-Area Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
8. Ingress ABR Procedures
When an ingress ABR receives a Leaf A-D route and the Route Target Extended Community carried by the route contains the IP address of this ABR, the ingress ABR follows the same procedures as in Section 7, with egress ABR replaced by ingress ABR, backbone area replaced by ingress area, and backbone area segment replaced by ingress area segment. In order to support global table multicast, the ingress ABR MUST be auto-configured with an import AS-based Route Target Extended Community whose Global Administrator field is set to the AS of the ABR and whose Local Administrator field is set to 0.8.1. P2MP LSP as the Intra-Area LSP in the Backbone Area
The procedures for binding the backbone area segment of an inter-area P2MP LSP to the intra-area P2MP LSP in the backbone area are the same as in Sections 7 and 7.2, with egress PE being replaced by egress ABR, egress ABR being replaced by ingress ABR, and egress area being replaced by backbone area. This applies to the inter-area P2MP LSPs associated with either MVPN, VPLS, or global table multicast. It is to be noted that, in the case of global table multicast, if the backbone area uses wildcard S-PMSI, then the egress area also SHOULD use wildcard S-PMSI for global table multicast, or the egress ABRs MUST be able to disaggregate traffic carried over the wildcard S-PMSI onto the egress area (S,G) or (*,G) S-PMSIs. The procedures for such disaggregation require IP processing on the egress ABRs.8.2. Ingress Replication in the Backbone Area
When ingress replication is used to instantiate the backbone area segment, the Leaf A-D route advertised by the egress ABR MUST carry a downstream-assigned label in the PMSI Tunnel attribute where the Tunnel Type is set to ingress replication. We will call this the egress ABR downstream-assigned label. The egress ABR MUST assign a distinct MPLS label for each Leaf A-D route originated by the ABR. The ingress ABR MUST forward packets received from the ingress area intra-area segment, for a particular inter-area P2MP LSP, to all the egress ABRs from which the ingress ABR has imported a Leaf A-D route for the inter-area P2MP LSP. A packet to a particular egress ABR is encapsulated, by the ingress ABR, using an MPLS label stack the bottom label of which is the egress ABR downstream-assigned label.
The top label is the P2P RSVP-TE or the MP2P LDP label to reach the egress ABR.9. Ingress PE/ASBR Procedures
This section describes the ingress PE/ASBR procedures for constructing segmented inter-area P2MP LSPs. When an ingress PE/ASBR receives a Leaf A-D route and the Route Target Extended Community carried by the route contains the IP address of this PE/ASBR, the following procedures will be executed. If the value of the third octet of the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the received Leaf A-D route is either 0x01, 0x02, or 0x03, this indicates that the Leaf A-D route was originated in response to an S-PMSI or I-PMSI A-D route (see Section 6.2.2). In this case, the ingress PE/ASBR MUST find an S-PMSI or I-PMSI route whose NLRI has the same value as the Route Key field of the received Leaf A-D route. If such a matching route is found, then the Leaf A-D route MUST be accepted or else it MUST be discarded. If the Leaf A-D route is accepted, then it MUST be processed as per MVPN or VPLS procedures. If the RD of the received A-D route is set to all zeros or all ones, then the received Leaf A-D route is for the global table multicast service. If this is the first Leaf A-D route for the Route Key carried in the route, the PIM implementation MUST set its upstream (S/RP,G) state machine to Joined state for the (S/RP,G) received via a Leaf A-D route update. Likewise, if this is the withdrawal of the last Leaf A-D route whose Route Key matches a particular (S/RP,G) state, the PIM implementation MUST set its upstream (S/RP,G) state machine to Prune state for the (S/RP,G).9.1. P2MP LSP as the Intra-Area LSP in the Ingress Area
If the value of the third octet of the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the received Leaf A-D route is either 0x01, 0x02, or 0x03 (which indicates that the Leaf A-D route was originated in response to an S-PMSI or I-PMSI A-D route), and P2MP LSP is used as the intra-area LSP in the ingress area, then the procedures for binding the ingress area segment of the inter-area P2MP LSP to the intra-area P2MP LSP in the ingress area are the same as in Sections 7 and 7.2. When the RD of the received Leaf A-D route is all zeros or all ones, as is the case where the inter-area service P2MP LSP is associated with the global table multicast service, the ingress PE MAY originate an S-PMSI A-D route with the RD, multicast source, and multicast group fields being the same as those in the received Leaf A-D route.
Further, in the case of global table multicast, an ingress PE MAY originate a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route as per the procedures in [RFC6625] with the RD set to 0. This route may be originated by the ingress PE based on configuration or based on the import of a Leaf A-D route with the RD set to 0. If an ingress PE originates such a route, then the ingress PE MAY decide not to originate (S,G) or (*,G) S-PMSI A-D routes. The wildcard S-PMSI A-D route MUST carry the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community. This Extended Community is constructed following the procedures in Section 4. It is to be noted that, in the case of global table multicast, if the ingress area uses wildcard S-PMSI, then the backbone area also SHOULD use wildcard S-PMSI for global table multicast, or the ingress ABRs MUST be able to disaggregate traffic carried over the wildcard S-PMSI onto the backbone area (S,G) or (*,G) S-PMSIs. The procedures for such disaggregation require IP processing on the ingress ABRs.9.2. Ingress Replication in the Ingress Area
When ingress replication is used to instantiate the ingress area segment, the Leaf A-D route advertised by the ingress ABR MUST carry a downstream-assigned label in the PMSI Tunnel attribute where the Tunnel Type is set to ingress replication. We will call this the ingress ABR downstream-assigned label. The ingress ABR MUST assign a distinct MPLS label for each Leaf A-D route originated by the ABR. The ingress PE/ASBR MUST forward packets received from the CE, for a particular inter-area P2MP LSP, to all the ingress ABRs from which the ingress PE/ASBR has imported a Leaf A-D route for the inter-area P2MP LSP. A packet to a particular ingress ABR is encapsulated, by the ingress PE/ASBR, using an MPLS label stack the bottom label of which is the ingress ABR downstream-assigned label. The top label is the P2P RSVP-TE or the MP2P LDP label to reach the ingress ABR.10. Common Tunnel Type in the Ingress and Egress Areas
For a given inter-area service P2MP LSP, the PE/ASBR that is the root of that LSP controls the type of the intra-area P-tunnel that carries the ingress area segment of that LSP. However, the type of the intra-area P-tunnel that carries the backbone area segment of that LSP may be different from the type of the intra-area P-tunnels that carry the ingress area segment and the egress area segment of that LSP. In that situation, if, for a given inter-area P2MP LSP, it is desirable/necessary to use the same type of tunnel for the intra-area P-tunnels that carry the ingress area segment and for the intra-area
P-tunnels that carry the egress area segment of that LSP, then the following procedures on the ingress ABR and egress ABR provide this functionality. When an ingress ABR re-advertises into the backbone area a BGP MVPN I-PMSI, S-PMSI A-D route, or VPLS A-D route, the ingress ABR places the PMSI Tunnel attribute of this route into the ATTR_SET BGP attribute [RFC6368], adds this attribute to the re-advertised route, and then replaces the original PMSI Tunnel attribute with a new one (note that the Tunnel Type of the new attribute may be different from the Tunnel Type of the original attribute). When an egress ABR re-advertises into the egress area a BGP MVPN I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D route, or VPLS A-D route, if the route carries the ATTR_SET BGP attribute [RFC6368], the ABR sets the Tunnel Type of the PMSI Tunnel attribute in the re-advertised route to the Tunnel Type of the PMSI Tunnel attribute carried in the ATTR_SET BGP attribute, and removes the ATTR_SET from the route.11. Placement of Ingress and Egress PEs
As described in the earlier sections, procedures in this document allow the placement of ingress and egress PEs in the backbone area. They also allow the placement of egress PEs in the ingress area or the placement of ingress PEs in the egress area. For instance, suppose that in the ingress and egress areas, a global table multicast service is being provided, and the data is being sent over PIM-based IP/GRE P-tunnels. Suppose also that it is desired to carry that data over the backbone area through MPLS P-tunnels. This can be done if the ABR connecting the ingress area to the backbone follows the procedures that this document specifies for ingress PEs providing the global table multicast service, and if the ABR connecting the egress area to the backbone follows the procedures that this document specifies for egress PEs providing the global table multicast service. If MVPN service is being provided in the ingress and egress areas, with the MVPN data carried in PIM-based IP/GRE P-tunnels, this same technique enables the MVPN data to be carried over the backbone in MPLS P-tunnels. The PIM-based IP/GRE P-tunnels in the ingress and egress areas are treated as global table multicasts, and the ABRs provide the ingress and egress PE functionality.
12. MVPN with Virtual Hub-and-Spoke
Procedures described in this document could be used in conjunction with the Virtual Hub-and-Spoke procedures [RFC7024]. This document does not place any restrictions on the placement of Virtual Hubs and Virtual Spokes. In addition to I-PMSI/S-PMSI A-D routes, the procedures described in this document are applicable to Associated-V-spoke-only I-PMSI A-D routes. In the scenario where a V-hub, as a result of importing an S-PMSI A-D route in its VRF, originates an S-PMSI A-D route targeted to its V-spokes (as specified in Section 7.8.2 of [RFC7024]), the V-hub SHOULD be able to control via configuration whether the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community, if present in the received S-PMSI A-D route, should also be carried in the originated S-PMSI A-D route. By default, if the received S-PMSI A-D route carries the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community, then the originated S-PMSI A-D route SHOULD also carry this Extended Community.13. Data Plane
This section describes the data plane procedures on the ABRs, ingress PEs, egress PEs, and transit routers.13.1. Data Plane Procedures on ABRs
When procedures in this document are followed to signal inter-area P2MP segmented LSPs, ABRs are required to perform only MPLS switching. When an ABR receives an MPLS packet from an "incoming" intra-area segment of the inter-area P2MP segmented LSP, it forwards the packet, based on MPLS switching, on to another "outgoing" intra- area segment of the inter-area P2MP segmented LSP. If the outgoing intra-area segment is instantiated using a P2MP LSP, and if there is a one-to-one mapping between the outgoing intra-area segment and the P2MP LSP, then the ABR MUST pop the incoming segment's label stack and push the label stack of the outgoing P2MP LSP. If there is a many-to-one mapping between outgoing intra-area segments and the P2MP LSP, then the ABR MUST pop the incoming segment's label stack and first push the upstream-assigned label corresponding to the outgoing intra-area segment, if such a label has been assigned, and then push the label stack of the outgoing P2MP LSP.
If the outgoing intra-area segment is instantiated using ingress replication, then the ABR must pop the incoming segment's label stack and replicate the packet once to each leaf ABR or PE of the outgoing intra-area segment. The label stack of the packet sent to each such leaf MUST first include a downstream-assigned label assigned by the leaf to the segment, followed by the label stack of the P2P or MP2P LSP to the leaf.13.2. Data Plane Procedures on Egress PEs
An egress PE must first identify the inter-area P2MP segmented LSP based on the incoming label stack. After this identification, the egress PE must forward the packet using the application that is bound to the inter-area P2MP segmented LSP. Note that the application-specific forwarding for MVPN service may require the egress PE to determine whether the packets were received from the expected sender PE. When the application is MVPN, the FEC of an inter-area P2MP segmented LSP is at the granularity of the sender PE. Note that MVPN intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes and S-PMSI A-D routes both carry the Originating Router's IP Address. Thus, an egress PE could associate the data arriving on P-tunnels advertised by these routes with the Originating Router's IP Address carried by these routes, which is the same as the ingress PE. Since a unique label stack is associated with each such FEC, the egress PE can determine the sender PE from the label stack. Likewise for VPLS service, for the purposes of Media Access Control (MAC) learning the egress, the PE must be able to determine the "VE-ID" (VPLS Edge Device Identifier) from which the packets have been received. The FEC of the VPLS A-D routes carries the VE-ID. Thus, an egress PE could associate the data arriving on P-tunnels advertised by these routes with the VE-ID carried by these routes. Since a unique label stack is associated with each such FEC, the egress PE can perform MAC learning for packets received from a given VE-ID. When the application is global table multicast, it is sufficient for the label stack to include identification of the sender upstream node. When P2MP LSPs are used, this requires that PHP MUST be turned off. When ingress replication is used, the egress PE knows the incoming downstream-assigned label to which it has bound a particular (S/*,G) and must accept packets with only that label for that (S/*,G).
13.3. Data Plane Procedures on Ingress PEs
An Ingress PE must perform application-specific forwarding procedures to identify the outgoing intra-area segment of an incoming packet. If the outgoing intra-area segment is instantiated using a P2MP LSP, and if there is a one-to-one mapping between the outgoing intra-area segment and the P2MP LSP, then the ingress PE MUST encapsulate the packet in the label stack of the outgoing P2MP LSP. If there is a many-to-one mapping between outgoing intra-area segments and the P2MP LSP, then the PE MUST first push the upstream-assigned label corresponding to the outgoing intra-area segment, if such a label has been assigned, and then push the label stack of the outgoing P2MP LSP. If the outgoing intra-area segment is instantiated using ingress replication, then the PE must replicate the packet once to each leaf ABR or PE of the outgoing intra-area segment. The label stack of the packet sent to each such leaf MUST first include a downstream- assigned label assigned by the leaf to the segment, followed by the label stack of the P2P or MP2P LSP to the leaf.13.4. Data Plane Procedures on Transit Routers
When procedures in this document are followed to signal inter-area P2MP segmented LSPs, transit routers in each area perform only MPLS switching.14. Support for Inter-Area Transport LSPs
This section describes OPTIONAL procedures that allow multiple (inter-area) P2MP LSPs to be aggregated into a single inter-area P2MP "transport LSP". The segmentation procedures, as specified in this document, are then applied to these inter-area P2MP transport LSPs, rather than being applied directly to the individual LSPs that are aggregated into the transport. In the following, the individual LSPs that are aggregated into a single transport LSP will be known as "service LSPs".14.1. "Transport Tunnel" Tunnel Type
For the PMSI Tunnel attribute, we define a new Tunnel Type, called "Transport Tunnel", whose Tunnel Identifier is a tuple <Source PE Address, Local Number>. This Tunnel Type is assigned a value of 8. The Source PE Address is the address of the PE that originates the (service) A-D route that carries this attribute, and the Local Number is a number that is unique to the Source PE. The length of the Local Number part is the same as the length of the Source PE Address.
Thus, if the Source PE Address is an IPv4 address, then the Local Number part is 4 octets; if the Source PE Address is an IPv6 address, then the Local Number part is 16 octets.14.2. Discovering Leaves of the Inter-Area P2MP Service LSP
When aggregating multiple P2MP LSPs using P2MP LSP hierarchy, determining the leaf nodes of the LSPs being aggregated is essential for being able to trade-off the overhead due to the P2MP LSPs versus suboptimal use of bandwidth due to the partial congruency of the LSPs being aggregated. Therefore, if a PE that is a root of a given service P2MP LSP wants to aggregate this LSP with other (service) P2MP LSPs rooted at the same PE into an inter-area P2MP transport LSP, the PE should first determine all the leaf nodes of that service LSP, as well as those of the other service LSPs being aggregated. To accomplish this, the PE sets the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the service A-D route (an I-PMSI or S-PMSI A-D route for MVPN or VPLS service) associated with that LSP as follows. The Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information present", and the "Leaf Information Required" flag is set to 1. The route MUST NOT carry the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community. In contrast to the procedures for the MVPN and VPLS A-D routes described so far, the Route Reflectors that participate in the distribution of this route need not be ABRs.14.3. Discovering P2MP FEC of P2MP Transport LSP
Once the ingress PE determines all the leaves of a given P2MP service LSP, the PE (using some local criteria) selects a particular inter- area transport P2MP LSP to be used for carrying the (inter-area) service P2MP LSP. Once the PE selects the transport P2MP LSP, the PE (re-)originates the service A-D route. The PMSI Tunnel attribute of this route now carries the Tunnel Identifier of the selected transport LSP, with the Tunnel Type set to "Transport Tunnel". If the transport LSP carries multiple P2MP service LSPs, then the MPLS Label field in the attribute carries an upstream-assigned label assigned by the PE that is bound to the P2MP FEC of the inter-area P2MP service LSP. Otherwise, this field is set to Implicit NULL. As described earlier, this service A-D route MUST NOT carry the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community, and the Route Reflectors that participate in the distribution of this route need not be ABRs.
14.4. Egress PE Procedures for P2MP Transport LSP
When an egress PE receives and accepts an MVPN or VPLS service A-D route, if the "Leaf Information Required" flag in the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the received A-D route is set to 1, and the route does not carry the Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community, then the egress PE, following the "regular" MVPN or VPLS procedures associated with the received A-D route (as specified in [RFC6514] and [RFC7117]), originates a Leaf A-D route. In addition, if the Tunnel Type in the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the received service A-D route is set to "Transport Tunnel", the egress PE originates yet another Leaf A-D route. The format of the Route Key field of the MCAST-VPN NLRI of this additional Leaf A-D route is the same as defined in Section 6.2.2. The Route Key field of the MCAST-VPN NLRI of this route is constructed as follows: RD (8 octets) - set to 0 Multicast Source Length, Multicast Source - constructed from the Source PE Address part of the Tunnel Identifier carried in the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the received service S-PMSI A-D route. Multicast Group Length, Multicast Group - constructed from the Local Number part of the Tunnel Identifier carried in the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the received service S-PMSI A-D route. Ingress PE IP Address - set to the Source PE Address part of the Tunnel Identifier carried in the PMSI Tunnel attribute of the received service S-PMSI A-D route. The egress PE, when determining the upstream ABR, follows the procedures specified in Section 6.1 for global table multicast. The egress PE constructs the rest of the Leaf A-D route following the procedures specified in Section 6.2.3. From that point on we follow the procedures used for the Leaf A-D routes for global table multicast, as outlined below.14.5. ABRs and Ingress PE Procedures for P2MP Transport LSP
In this section, we specify ingress and egress ABRs, as well as ingress PE procedures for P2MP transport LSPs.
When an egress ABR receives the Leaf A-D route, and P2MP LSP is used to instantiate the egress area segment of the inter-area transport LSP, the egress ABR will advertise into the egress area an S-PMSI A-D route. This route is constructed following the procedures in Section 7.2.2.1. The egress PE(s) will import this route. The egress ABR will also propagate, with appropriate modifications, the received Leaf A-D route into the backbone area. This is irrespective of whether the egress area segment is instantiated using P2MP LSP or ingress replication. If P2MP LSP is used to instantiate the backbone area segment of the inter-area transport LSP, then an ingress ABR will advertise into the backbone area an S-PMSI A-D route. This route is constructed following the procedures in Section 7.1.2.1. The egress ABR(s) will import this route. The ingress ABR will also propagate, with appropriate modifications, the received Leaf A-D route into the ingress area towards the ingress/root PE. This is irrespective of whether the backbone area segment is instantiated using P2MP LSP or ingress replication. Finally, if P2MP LSP is used to instantiate the ingress area segment, the ingress PE will advertise into the ingress area an S-PMSI A-D route with the RD, multicast source, and multicast group fields being the same as those in the received Leaf A-D route. The PMSI Tunnel attribute of this route contains the identity of the intra-area P2MP LSP used to instantiate the ingress area segment, and an upstream- assigned MPLS label. The ingress ABR(s) and other PE(s) in the ingress area, if any, will import this route. The ingress PE will use the (intra-area) P2MP LSP advertised in this route for carrying traffic associated with the original service A-D route advertised by the PE.14.6. Discussion
Use of inter-area transport P2MP LSPs, as described in this section, creates a level of indirection between (inter-area) P2MP service LSPs, and intra-area transport LSPs that carry the service LSPs. Rather than segmenting (inter-area) service P2MP LSPs, and then aggregating (intra-area) segments of these service LSPs into intra- area transport LSPs, this approach first aggregates multiple (inter- area) service P2MP LSPs into a single inter-area transport P2MP LSP, then segments such inter-area transport P2MP LSPs, and then aggregates (intra-area) segments of these inter-area transport LSPs into intra-area transport LSPs.
On one hand, this approach could result in reducing the state (and the overhead associated with maintaining the state) on ABRs. This is because instead of requiring ABRs to maintain state for individual P2MP service LSPs, ABRs would need to maintain state only for the inter-area P2MP transport LSPs. Note, however, that this reduction is possible only if a single inter-area P2MP transport LSP aggregates more than one (inter-area) service LSP. In the absence of such aggregation, use of inter-area transport LSPs provides no benefits, yet results in extra overhead. And while such aggregation does allow reduced state on ABRs, it comes at a price, as described below. As we mentioned before, aggregating multiple P2MP service LSPs into a single inter-area P2MP transport LSP requires the PE rooted at these LSPs to determine all the leaf nodes of the service LSPs to be aggregated. This means that the root PE has to track all the leaf PEs of these LSPs. In contrast, when one applies segmentation procedures directly to the P2MP service LSPs, the root PE has to track only the leaf PEs in its own IGP area, plus the ingress ABR(s). Likewise, an ingress ABR has to track only the egress ABRs. Finally, an egress ABR has to track only the leaf PEs in its own area. Therefore, while the total overhead of leaf tracking due to the P2MP service LSPs is about the same in both approaches, the distribution of this overhead is different. Specifically, when one uses inter- area P2MP transport LSPs, this overhead is concentrated on the ingress PE. When one applies segmentation procedures directly to the P2MP service LSPs, this overhead is distributed among the ingress PE and ABRs. Moreover, when one uses inter-area P2MP transport LSPs, ABRs have to bear the overhead of leaf tracking for inter-area P2MP transport LSPs. In contrast, when one applies segmentation procedures directly to the P2MP service LSPs, there is no such overhead (as there are no inter-area P2MP transport LSPs). Use of inter-area P2MP transport LSPs may also result in more bandwidth inefficiency, as compared to applying segmentation procedures directly to the P2MP service LSPs. This is because with inter-area P2MP transport LSPs the ABRs aggregate segments of inter- area P2MP transport LSPs, rather than segments of (inter-area) P2MP service LSPs. To illustrate this, consider the following example. Assume PE1 in Area 1 is an ingress PE, with two multicast streams, (C-S1, C-G1) and (C-S2, C-G2), originated by an MVPN site connected to PE1. Assume that PE2 in Area 2 has an MVPN site with receivers for (C-S1, C-G1), PE3 and PE4 in Area 3 have an MVPN site with receivers for both (C-S1, C-G1) and (C-S2, C-G2). Finally, assume that PE5 in Area 4 has an MVPN site with receivers for (C-S2, C-G2).
When segmentation applies directly to the P2MP service LSPs, Area 2 would have just one intra-area transport LSP that would carry the egress area segment of the P2MP service LSP for (C-S1, C-G1); Area 3 would have just one intra-area transport LSP that would carry the egress area segments of both the P2MP service LSP for (C-S1, C-G1) and the P2MP service LSP for (C-S2, C-G2); Area 4 would have just one intra-area transport LSP that would carry the egress area segment of the P2MP service LSP for (C-S2, C-G2). Note that there is no bandwidth inefficiency in this case at all. When using inter-area P2MP transport LSPs, to achieve the same state overhead on the routers within each of the egress areas (except for egress ABRs), PE1 would need to aggregate the P2MP service LSP for (C-S1, C-G1) and the P2MP service LSP for (C-S2, C-G2) into the same inter-area P2MP transport LSP. While such aggregation would reduce state on ABRs, it would also result in bandwidth inefficiency, as (C-S1, C-G1) will be delivered not just to PE2, PE3, and PE4, but also to PE5, which has no receivers for this stream. Likewise, (C-S2, C-G2) will be delivered not just to PE3, PE4, and PE5, but also to PE2, which has no receivers for this stream.15. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new BGP Extended Community called "Inter-Area P2MP Segmented Next-Hop" (see Section 4). This may be either a Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community or a Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Community. IANA has assigned the value 0x12 in the "Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community Sub-Types" registry, and IANA has assigned the value 0x0012 in the "Transitive IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Community Types" registry. This document is the reference for both code points. IANA has assigned the value 0x08 in the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry [RFC7385] as "Transport Tunnel" (see Section 14). This document makes use of a Route Distinguisher whose value is all ones. The two-octet type field of this Route Distinguisher thus has the value 65535. IANA has assigned this value in the "Route Distinguisher Type Field" registry as "For Use Only in Certain Leaf A-D Routes", with this document as the reference.16. Security Considerations
Procedures described in this document are subject to security threats similar to those experienced by any MPLS deployment. It is recommended that baseline security measures are considered as described in "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks"
[RFC5920], in the mLDP specification [RFC6388], and in the P2MP RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209]. The security considerations of [RFC6513] are also applicable.17. References
17.1. Normative References
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>. [RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk, R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684, November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>. [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>. [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>. [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>. [RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Ed., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, DOI 10.17487/RFC5332, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5332>. [RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo, "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>. [RFC6368] Marques, P., Raszuk, R., Patel, K., Kumaki, K., and T. Yamagata, "Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 6368, DOI 10.17487/RFC6368, September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6368>. [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>. [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>. [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R. Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes", RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>. [RFC7117] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>. [RFC7385] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", RFC 7385, DOI 10.17487/RFC7385, October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7385>.17.2. Informative References
[GTM] Zhang, J, Giuliano, L, Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K., Pacella, D., and J. Schiller, "Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN Procedures", Work in Progress, draft-ietf- bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-00, November 2014. [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>. [RFC7024] Jeng, H., Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Decraene, B., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 7024, DOI 10.17487/RFC7024, October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7024>. [SEAMLESS-MPLS] Leymann, N., Ed., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz, M., Ed., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07, June 2014.Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Loa Andersson and Qin Wu for their review and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks 1194 North Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 United States Eric C Rosen Juniper Networks 10 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 United States EMail: erosen@juniper.net Rahul Aggarwal EMail: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com Thomas Morin Orange 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex France EMail: thomas.morin@orange.com Irene Grosclaude Orange 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex France EMail: irene.grosclaude@orange.com Nicolai Leymann Deutsche Telekom AG Winterfeldtstrasse 21 Berlin 10781 Germany EMail: n.leymann@telekom.de Samir Saad AT&T EMail: samirsaad1@outlook.com