Hi Adrian,
many thanks for your detailed clarification and helpful suggestions. Please find my follow-up notes under GIM2>> tag in green. Also, attached are the new diff and working version of the draft.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 6:51 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Greg,
Thanks for this. I’m cutting down to places where we still need to interact. Look for [af] and blue text.
Nothing alarming.
Best,
Adrian
Section 3 notes that the procedure (presumably the procedure defined
in this section) is OPTIONAL. I didn't see anything similar in sections
4 and 5 stating that those procedures are optional. Presumably, since
this document is not updating any other RFCs, all of these procedures
are optional.
Actually it would be good to clarify how all these procedures fit in
with "legacy" deployments, and how they are all optional procedures. I
think that needs a short statement in the Introduction and a small
section of its own (maybe between 6 and 7).GIM>> Thank you for the suggestion. I've updated the Introduction in this way:
OLD TEXT:
Section 4 describes protocol extensions that can speed up failover by
not requiring any multicast VPN routing message exchange at recovery
time.
Moreover, section 5 describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism, that
uses a combination of these two mechanisms. This approach has
similarities with the solution described in [RFC7431] to improve
failover times when PIM routing is used in a network given some
topology and metric constraints.NEW TEXT:
Section 4 describes optional protocol extensions that can speed up
failover by not requiring any multicast VPN routing message exchange
at recovery time.
Moreover, Section 5 describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism that can
be used to improve failover time in MVPN. The approach combines
mechanisms defined in Section 3 and Section 4 has similarities with
the solution described in [RFC7431] to improve failover times when
PIM routing is used in a network given some topology and metric
constraints.
I think that Section 5 is intended to explain how introduced BGP extensions and their use described in Section 3 and Section 4 enable operators to provide protection for multicast services. Would you suggest adding a new text to the section to highlight particular aspects of introducing protection in MVPN?
[af] OK I obviously wasn’t clear. What I’m looking for is something like…
The procedures described in this document are optional to enable an operator to provide protection for multicast services. An operator would enable these mechanisms using <foo> and it is assumed that these mechanisms would be supported by all <what?> in the network for the procedures to work. In the case that a BGP implementation does not recognise or is configured to not support the extensions defined in this document, it will respond <somehow> as described in <rfc????>. This would result in <something>.
GIM2>> I think I've got the idea now. Would appending the new paragraph to the Introduction address your comment:
NEW TEXT:
The procedures described in this document are optional to enable anoperator to provide protection for multicast services in BGP/MPLS IP
VPNs. An operator would enable these mechanisms using a method
discussed in Section 3 in combination with the redundancy provided by
a standby PE connected to the source of the multicast flow, and it is
assumed that all PEs in the network would support these mechanisms
for the procedures to work. In the case that a BGP implementation
does not recognize or is configured to not support the extensions
defined in this document, it will continue to provide the multicast
service, as described in [RFC6513].
It is curious (to me) that 3.1.1 describes a way to know that a P-tunnel
is up. You don't say, however, if being unable to determine that the
P-tunnel is up using this method is equivalent to determining that the
P-tunnel is down. (Previously in 3.1 you have talked about the "tunnel's
state is not known to be down".)GIM>> This method, as noted in the document, is similar to BGP next-hop tracking, may be computationally intensive, and cannot be run frequently. So, in periods between checking whether the root address in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute is reachable the state is "not known to be down".
[af] Well, OK. Can you add to say that, “If it is not possible to determine whether the state of a tunnel is ‘up’, the state shall be considered as ‘not known to be down’, and it may be treated as if it is ‘up’ so that attempts to use the tunnel are acceptable.” This is probably “obvious to one skilled in the art,” but would help this reader.
GIM2>> Thank you for the contributed text. I've added in before "not known to be Down" used in the text (with the yellowish background):
NEW TEXT:
The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that is based
on a downstream PE taking into account the status of P-tunnels rootedat each possible Upstream PE, for including or not including each
given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S, C-G) state.
If it is not possible to determine whether a P-tunnel's current
status is Up, the state shall be considered "not known to be Down",
and it may be treated as if it is Up so that attempts to use the
tunnel are acceptable. The result is that, if a P-tunnel is Down
(see Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not
be considered for UMH selection. This will result in the downstream
PE failing over to use the next Upstream PE in the list of
candidates. Some downstream PEs could arrive at a different
conclusion regarding the tunnel's state because the failure impacts
only a subset of branches. Because of that, procedures described in
Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513] MUST be used when using I-PMSI P-tunnels.
By the way, do you ever say that a P-tunnel has just these two statuses
(up and down) because that could make a big difference?GIM>> I think that the document then needs to discuss what impact detection time has on MVPN. For example, if the detection time is in single-digit seconds, a two-state model can be used. But would it be a useful model if the detection time is in tens of seconds? Should a "not known to be down" state be introduced?
[af] Yes, that *seems* to be the implication. But is there any different action between “up” and “not known to be down”? If you have three states then there is (possibly) an implication that tunnels are prioritised by state. I think, however, that it is OK to use “not known to be down” as if it was “up”.
GIM2>> Thank you.
Note that 3.1.2 etc also establish ways to know that the tunnel is up,
but not ways to determine whether the tunnel is down.GIM>> In this section the state of a P-tunnel is equated with the state of the last link of that tunnel. The document notes that if the link is Up, then the P-tunnel is considered down. It is implied, that if it is determined that the link is Down, then the state of the P-tunnel is considered Down. Would you recommend adding an explanation to the document?
To reiterate, "I don't know if it is up" is not the same as "I know it
is down."GIM>> Indeed. It is analogous to "it was Up the last time I've checked on it". It meant to be used when the interval between checking is significant.
[af] Assuming there is typo in what you just wrote – link not up è tunnel down.
Also assuming that we don’t go down the “three state” path, then “not checked for a while” is still “Up”.
I think it was the phrasing in 3.1.2. It sounded like “Here is a way to know that the tunnel is up” which is a good thing, but does not say that it is exclusive. So, avoiding the “implication” would be a good thing. Something like
OLD
A condition to consider a tunnel status as Up can be that the last-
hop link of the P-tunnel is Up.
NEW
A condition to consider a tunnel status as Up can be that the last-
hop link of the P-tunnel is Up. Conversely, if the last-hop link of
the P-tunnel is Down then this can be taken as an indication that
the P-tunnel is Down.
END
GIM2>> Many thanks for the new text. Updated accordingly.
3.1.2
Using this method when a fast restoration mechanism (such as MPLS FRR
[RFC4090]) is in place for the link requires careful consideration
and coordination of defect detection intervals for the link and the
tunnel. In many cases, it is not practical to use both protection
methods at the same time.
OK, I considered them carefully. Now what? :-)
I think you have to give implementation guidance.GIM>> I agree, an operational recommendation could be helpful. Usually, in case of multi-layered protection, detection intervals on the higher layer are 10 times of guaranteed restoration time of the lower layer. Would you recommend adding this to the text as an example of a deployment?
[af] An example would be fine (and a forward reference from here). But it would be fine, maybe better, to offer half a sentence of guidance. So…”not practical to use both protection methods at the same time because <adverse interactions?>….”
GIM2>> Thank you for the explanation. Extended the last sentence:
NEW TEXT:
In many cases, it is not practical to use both protectionmethods at the same time because uncorrelated timers might cause
unnecessary switchovers and destabilize the network.
All of 3.1.x are timid about the use of the mechanisms they describe.
I think that the end of 3.1 should say that an implementation may choose
to use any of these mechanisms to determine the status of the P-tunnel.GIM>> Will the following text reflect that:
NEW TEXT:
An implementation may support any combination of the methods
described in this section and provide a network operator with controlto choose which one to use in the particular deployment.
[af] Good.
3.1.6
What should I do if I don't recognise or support the setting of the BFD
Mode field?GIM>> I think that the same handling applies as for the malformed attribute:
If malformed, the UPDATE
message SHALL be handled using the approach of Attribute Discard per[RFC7606].
I propose to extend the applicability of the rule with the following update to the sentence:
NEW TEXT:
The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed if its
length is not a non-zero multiple of four. If the setting of the BFD
Mode field is not recognized or not supported, or the attribute
considered malformed, the UPDATE message SHALL be handled using the
approach of Attribute Discard per [RFC7606].
[af] This is a bit subtle and refers also to my first point in this email. If the setting of the BFD Mode is not recognised or not supported, then it is likely because this specification is not supported. Therefore, this specification cannot mandate how the implementation will behave. I think you have to separate:
- The malformed SHALL be handled using Attribute Discard according to [RFC7606]
- An unknown or unsupported attribute will be handled by implementations according to the procedures for unknown attributes described in <foo>
GIM2>> I thought of a different "unsupported" scenario. Consider BFD Discriminator attribute is supported but an implementation does not recognize the value in the BFD Mode field. In the case the BFD Discriminator is unknown or unsupported procedures defined for the optional transitive path attribute in Section 5 of RFC 4271 must be followed. I've removed the recent updated and added the reference to RFC 4271 (added as the Normative reference) following the definition of the new attribute:
NEW TEXT:
This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP
attribute called the "BFD Discriminator". It is an optional
transitive BGP attribute. An implementation that does not recognize
or is configured not to support this attribute MUST follow procedures
defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of
[RFC4271].
attribute called the "BFD Discriminator". It is an optional
transitive BGP attribute. An implementation that does not recognize
or is configured not to support this attribute MUST follow procedures
defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of
[RFC4271].
4.1
The normal and the standby C-multicast routes must have their Local
Preference attribute adjusted
Should this be "MUST"?GIM>> I think that is not an actionable 'must'. It could be expressed as
The Local Preference attribute of the normal and the standby C-multicast route needs to be adjusted.
Would you recommend using the re-worded passage?
[af] The alternative text is good.
GIM2>> Done.
==Nits:==
Section 3 has
Because of that, procedures described in Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513]
MUST be used when using I-PMSI P-tunnels.
Aren't those procedures already mandatory? That section of 6513 already
uses "MUST" (although it oes go on to say that it might not be possible
to apply the procedure and delegates processing to 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 -
peculiarly using lowercase must for that delegation). I wonder whether
you are saying "this case is covered by the procedures of Section 9.1.1
of [RFC6513]" or are you actually defining new normative behaviour?GIM>> I think that the use of lower case 'must' is ambiguous and somewhat confusing. You are right, the intention is to refer to Section 9.1.1 as the mandatory behavior. But neither 9.1.2, nor 9.1.3 use the normative language. What would you recommend?
[af] Maybe…
“Because of that, the procedures of Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513] are applicable. That document is a foundation for this document and its processes all apply here. Section 9.1.1 mandates the use of specific procedures for sending intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes.”
GIM2>> Thank you for the text. Updated accordingly with noting "when using I-PMSI P-tunnels"
NEW TEXT:
Because of that, the procedures of
Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513] are applicable when using I-PMSI
P-tunnels. That document is a foundation for this document, and its
processes all apply here. Section 9.1.1 mandates the use of specific
procedures for sending intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes.
Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513] are applicable when using I-PMSI
P-tunnels. That document is a foundation for this document, and its
processes all apply here. Section 9.1.1 mandates the use of specific
procedures for sending intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes.
4.1
As long as C-S is reachable via the Primary
Upstream PE and the Upstream PE is the Primary Upstream PE.
This sentence doesn't seem to be complete. What is the consequence of
this condition?GIM>> It suppose to be
As long as
C-S is reachable via the Primary Upstream PE, the Upstream PE is the
Primary Upstream PE.Is it better?
[af] That makes sense
Network Working Group T. Morin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track R. Kebler, Ed.
Expires: May 1, 2021 Juniper Networks
G. Mirsky, Ed.
ZTE Corp.
October 28, 2020
Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-12
Abstract
This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that
allow fast failover for upstream failures by allowing downstream PEs
to consider the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when selecting
the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow. The fast failover is
enabled by using RFC 8562 BFD for Multipoint Networks and the new BGP
Attribute - BFD Discriminator. Also, the document introduces a new
BGP Community, Standby PE, extending BGP MVPN routing so that a
C-multicast route can be advertised toward a Standby Upstream PE.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Determining the Status of a Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. mVPN Tunnel Root Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. PE-P Upstream Link Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3. P2MP RSVP-TE Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. Leaf-initiated P-tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5. (C-S, C-G) Counter Information . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6. BFD Discriminator Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.7. Per PE-CE Link BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Standby C-multicast Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Downstream PE Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Upstream PE Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Reachability Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Inter-AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1. Inter-AS Procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR Fast
Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2. Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Hot Root Standby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Duplicate Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Standby PE Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. BFD Discriminator Optional Sub-TLV Type . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
1. Introduction
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the workings of
multicast MPLS/BGP IP VPNs as described in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].
In the context of multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs [RFC6513], it is
desirable to provide mechanisms allowing fast recovery of
connectivity on different types of failures. This document addresses
failures of elements in the provider network that are upstream of PEs
connected to VPN sites with receivers.
Section 3 describes local procedures allowing an egress PE (a PE
connected to a receiver site) to take into account the status of
P-tunnels to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a given
(C-S, C-G). One of the optional methods uses [RFC8562] and the new
BGP Attribute - BFD Discriminator. None of these methods provide a
"fast failover" solution when used alone, but can be used together
with the mechanism described in Section 4 for a "fast failover"
solution.
Section 4 describes an optional BGP extension, a new Standby PE
Community. that can speed up failover by not requiring any multicast
VPN routing message exchange at recovery time.
Section 5 describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism that can be used
to improve failover time in MVPN. The approach combines mechanisms
defined in Section 3 and Section 4 has similarities with the solution
described in [RFC7431] to improve failover times when PIM routing is
used in a network given some topology and metric constraints.
The procedures described in this document are optional to enable an
operator to provide protection for multicast services in BGP/MPLS IP
VPNs. An operator would enable these mechanisms using a method
discussed in Section 3 in combination with the redundancy provided by
a standby PE connected to the source of the multicast flow, and it is
assumed that all PEs in the network would support these mechanisms
for the procedures to work. In the case that a BGP implementation
does not recognize or is configured to not support the extensions
defined in this document, it will continue to provide the multicast
service, as described in [RFC6513].
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Terminology
The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined in
[RFC6513] and [RFC6514].
The term 'upstream' (lower case) throughout this document refers to
links and nodes that are upstream to a PE connected to VPN sites with
receivers of a multicast flow.
The term 'Upstream' (capitalized) throughout this document refers to
a PE or an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) at which (S,G) or
(*,G) data packets enter the VPN backbone or the local AS when
traveling through the VPN backbone.
2.3. Acronyms
PMSI: P-Multicast Service Interface
I-PMSI: Inclusive PMSI
S-PMSI: Selective PMSI
x-PMSI: Either an I-PMSI or an S-PMSI
P-tunnel: Provider-Tunnels
UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop
VPN: Virtual Private Network
MVPN: Multicast VPN
RD: Route Distinguisher
RP: Rendezvous Point
NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information
VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding Table
MED: Multi-Exit Discriminator
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
3. UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status
Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] describes procedures used by a multicast VPN
downstream PE to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a
given (C-S, C-G).
For a given downstream PE and a given VRF, the P-tunnel corresponding
to a given Upstream PE for a given (C-S, C-G) state is the S-PMSI
tunnel advertised by that Upstream PE for this (C-S, C-G) and
imported into that VRF, or if there isn't any such S-PMSI, the I-PMSI
tunnel advertised by that PE and imported into that VRF.
The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that is based
on a downstream PE taking into account the status of P-tunnels rooted
at each possible Upstream PE, for including or not including each
given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S, C-G) state.
If it is not possible to determine whether a P-tunnel's current
status is Up, the state shall be considered "not known to be Down",
and it may be treated as if it is Up so that attempts to use the
tunnel are acceptable. The result is that, if a P-tunnel is Down
(see Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not
be considered for UMH selection. This will result in the downstream
PE failing over to use the next Upstream PE in the list of
candidates. Some downstream PEs could arrive at a different
conclusion regarding the tunnel's state because the failure impacts
only a subset of branches. Because of that, the procedures of
Section 9.1.1 of [RFC6513] are applicable when using I-PMSI
P-tunnels. That document is a foundation for this document, and its
processes all apply here. Section 9.1.1 mandates the use of specific
procedures for sending intra-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes.
There are three options specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] for a
downstream PE to select an Upstream PE.
o The first two options select the Upstream PE from a candidate PE
set either based on an IP address or a hashing algorithm. When
used together with the optional procedure of considering the
P-tunnel status as in this document, a candidate Upstream PE is
included in the set if it either:
A. advertises an x-PMSI bound to a tunnel, where the specified
tunnel's state is not known to be Down, or,
B. does not advertise any x-PMSI applicable to the given (C-S,
C-G) but has associated a VRF Route Import BGP attribute to
the unicast VPN route for S. That is necessary to avoid
incorrectly invalidating a UMH PE that would use a policy
where no I-PMSI is advertised for a given VRF and where only
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
S-PMSI are used. The S-PMSI can be advertised only after the
Upstream PE receives a C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G)/(C-*,
C-G) to be carried over the advertised S-PMSI.
If the resulting candidate set is empty, then the procedure is
repeated without considering the P-tunnel status.
o The third option uses the installed UMH Route (i.e., the "best"
route towards the C-root) as the Selected UMH Route, and its
originating PE is the selected Upstream PE. With the optional
procedure of considering P-tunnel status as in this document, the
Selected UMH Route is the best one among those whose originating
PE's P-tunnel is not "down". If that does not exist, the
installed UMH Route is selected regardless of the P-tunnel status.
3.1. Determining the Status of a Tunnel
Different factors can be considered to determine the "status" of a
P-tunnel and are described in the following sub-sections. The
optional procedures described in this section also handle the case
the downstream PEs do not all apply the same rules to define what the
status of a P-tunnel is (please see Section 6), and some of them will
produce a result that may be different for different downstream PEs.
Thus, the "status" of a P-tunnel in this section is not a
characteristic of the tunnel in itself, but is the tunnel status, as
seen from a particular downstream PE. Additionally, some of the
following methods determine the ability of a downstream PE to receive
traffic on the P-tunnel and not specifically on the status of the
P-tunnel itself. That could be referred to as "P-tunnel reception
status", but for simplicity, we will use the terminology of P-tunnel
"status" for all of these methods.
Depending on the criteria used to determine the status of a P-tunnel,
there may be an interaction with another resiliency mechanism used
for the P-tunnel itself, and the UMH update may happen immediately or
may need to be delayed. Each particular case is covered in each
separate sub-section below.
An implementation may support any combination of the methods
described in this section and provide a network operator with control
to choose which one to use in the particular deployment.
3.1.1. mVPN Tunnel Root Tracking
A condition to consider that the status of a P-tunnel is Up is that
the root of the tunnel, as determined in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute,
is reachable through unicast routing tables. In this case, the
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the reachability
condition changes.
That is similar to BGP next-hop tracking for VPN routes, except that
the address considered is not the BGP next-hop address, but the root
address in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute.
If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes and the root address
of a given tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop address in
the BGP A-D Route advertising the tunnel, then checking, in unicast
routing tables, whether the tunnel root is reachable, will be
unnecessary duplication and thus will not bring any specific benefit.
3.1.2. PE-P Upstream Link Status
A condition to consider a tunnel status as Up can be that the last-
hop link of the P-tunnel is Up. Conversely, if the last-hop link of
the P-tunnel is Down then this can be taken as an indication that the
P-tunnel is Down.
Using this method when a fast restoration mechanism (such as MPLS FRR
[RFC4090]) is in place for the link requires careful consideration
and coordination of defect detection intervals for the link and the
tunnel. In many cases, it is not practical to use both protection
methods at the same time because uncorrelated timers might cause
unnecessary switchovers and destabilize the network.
3.1.3. P2MP RSVP-TE Tunnels
For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is
considered Up if the sub-LSP to this downstream PE is in the Up
state. The determination of whether a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP is in the Up
state requires Path and Resv state for the LSP and is based on
procedures specified in [RFC4875]. As a result, the downstream PE
can immediately update its UMH when the reachability condition
changes.
When using this method and if the signaling state for a P2MP TE LSP
is removed (e.g., if the ingress of the P2MP TE LSP sends a PathTear
message) or the P2MP TE LSP changes state from Up to Down as
determined by procedures in [RFC4875], the status of the
corresponding P-tunnel MUST be re-evaluated. If the P-tunnel
transitions from Up to Down state, the Upstream PE that is the
ingress of the P-tunnel MUST NOT be considered a valid UMH.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
3.1.4. Leaf-initiated P-tunnels
An Upstream PE SHOULD be removed from the UMH candidate list for a
given (C-S, C-G) if the P-tunnel (I-PMSI or S-PMSI) for this (S, G)
is leaf-triggered (PIM, mLDP), but for some reason, internal to the
protocol, the upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE
cannot be built. As a result, the downstream PE can immediately
update its UMH when the reachability condition changes.
3.1.5. (C-S, C-G) Counter Information
In cases, where the downstream node can be configured so that the
maximum inter-packet time is known for all the multicast flows mapped
on a P-tunnel, the local per-(C-S, C-G) traffic counter information
for traffic received on this P-tunnel can be used to determine the
status of the P-tunnel.
When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration
mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, a configurable timer MUST be
set on the downstream PE to wait before updating the UMH, to let the
P-tunnel restoration mechanism to execute its actions. An
implementation SHOULD use three seconds as the default value for this
timer.
In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with the method
described in Section 5, no prior knowledge of the rate of the
multicast streams is required; downstream PEs can compare reception
on the two P-tunnels to determine when one of them is down.
3.1.6. BFD Discriminator Attribute
P-tunnel status may be derived from the status of a multipoint BFD
session [RFC8562] whose discriminator is advertised along with an
x-PMSI A-D Route.
This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP
attribute called the "BFD Discriminator". It is an optional
transitive BGP attribute. An implementation that does not recognize
or is configured not to support this attribute MUST follow procedures
defined for optional transitive path attributes in Section 5 of
[RFC4271]. In Section 7.2, IANA is requested to allocate the
codepoint value (TBA2). The format of this attribute is shown in
Figure 1.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BFD Mode | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BFD Discriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of the BFD Discriminator Attribute
Where:
BFD Mode field is the one octet long. This specification defines
the P2MP BFD Session as value 1 Section 7.2.
Reserved field is three octets long, and the value MUST be zeroed
on transmission and ignored on receipt.
BFD Discriminator field is four octets long.
Optional TLVs is the optional variable-length field that MAY be
used in the BFD Discriminator attribute for future extensions.
TLVs MAY be included in a sequential or nested manner. To allow
for TLV nesting, it is advised to define a new TLV as a variable-
length object. Figure 2 presents the Optional TLV format TLV that
consists of:
* one octet-long field of TLV's Type value (Section 7.3)
* one octet-long field of the length of the Value field in octets
* variable length Value field.
The length of a TLV MUST be multiple of four octets.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format of the Optional TLV
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed if its
length is not a non-zero multiple of four. If the attribute
considered malformed, the UPDATE message SHALL be handled using the
approach of Attribute Discard per [RFC7606].
3.1.6.1. Upstream PE Procedures
To enable downstream PEs to track the P-tunnel status using a point-
to-multipoint (P2MP) BFD session the Upstream PE:
o MUST initiate the BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
MultipointHead as described in [RFC8562];
o MUST set the IP destination address of the inner IP header to one
of the internal loopback addresses from 127/8 range for IPv4 or
one of IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses from ::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 range
for IPv6 when transmitting BFD Control packets;
o MUST use its IP address as the source IP address when transmitting
BFD Control packets;
o MUST include the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
Route with the value set to My Discriminator value;
o MUST periodically transmit BFD Control packets over the x-PMSI
P-tunnel after the P-tunnel is considered established. Note that
the methods to declare a P-tunnel has been established are outside
the scope of this specification.
If the tracking of the P-tunnel by using a P2MP BFD session is
enabled after the x-PMSI A-D Route has been already advertised, the
x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with precisely the same attributes
as before and the BFD Discriminator attribute included.
If the x-PMSI A-D Route is advertised with P-tunnel status tracked
using the P2MP BFD session and it is desired to stop tracking
P-tunnel status using BFD, then:
o x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with precisely the same
attributes as before, but the BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be
excluded;
o the P2MP BFD session SHOULD be deleted.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
3.1.6.2. Downstream PE Procedures
Upon receiving the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
Route, the downstream PE:
o MUST associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the
P-tunnel originating from the Upstream PE and the IP address of
the Upstream PE;
o MUST create a P2MP BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
MultipointTail as described in [RFC8562];
o MUST use the source IP address of the BFD Control packet, the
value of the BFD Discriminator field, and the x-PMSI Tunnel
Identifier [RFC6514] the BFD Control packet was received to
properly demultiplex BFD sessions.
After the state of the P2MP BFD session is up, i.e., bfd.SessionState
== Up, the session state will then be used to track the health of the
P-tunnel.
According to [RFC8562], if the downstream PE receives Down or
AdminDown in the State field of the BFD Control packet or associated
with the BFD session Detection Timer expires, the BFD session is
down, i.e., bfd.SessionState == Down. When the BFD session state is
Down, then the P-tunnel associated with the BFD session MUST be
considered down. If the site that contains C-S is connected to two
or more PEs, a downstream PE will select one as its Primary Upstream
PE, while others are considered as Standby Upstream PEs. In such a
scenario, when the P-tunnel is considered down, the downstream PE MAY
initiate a switchover of the traffic from the Primary Upstream PE to
the Standby Upstream PE only if the Standby Upstream PE is deemed
available.
If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established when the
downstream PE receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route with BFD
Discriminator attribute, the downstream PE MUST associate the value
of BFD Discriminator field with the P-tunnel and follow procedures
listed above in this section if and only if the x-PMSI A-D Route was
properly processed as per [RFC6514], and the BFD Discriminator
attribute was validated.
If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established, its state
being monitored by the P2MP BFD session, and the downstream PE
receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route without the BFD Discriminator
attribute, and the x-PMSI A-D Route was processed without any error
as per the relevant specifications, the downstream PE:
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
o MUST stop processing BFD Control packets for this P2MP BFD
session;
o SHOULD delete the P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel;
o SHOULD NOT switch the traffic to the Standby Upstream PE.
3.1.7. Per PE-CE Link BFD Discriminator
The following approach is defined in response to the detection by the
Upstream PE of a PE-CE link failure. Even though the provider tunnel
is still up, it is desired for the downstream PEs to switch to a
backup Upstream PE. To achieve that, if the Upstream PE detects that
its PE-CE link fails, it SHOULD set the bfd.LocalDiag of the P2MP BFD
session to Concatenated Path Down and/or Reverse Concatenated Path
Down (per Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880]), unless it switches to a new PE-
CE link within the time of bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval for the P2MP BFD
session (in that case, the Upstream PE will start tracking the status
of the new PE-CE link). When a downstream PE receives that
bfd.LocalDiag code, it treats it as if the tunnel itself failed and
tries to switch to a backup PE.
4. Standby C-multicast Route
The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs though, to simplify
the description, the case of dual-homing is described. The
procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the same UMH
selection procedure, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE
selected based on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in
section 5.1.3 of [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route. The procedures
assume that if a site of a given MVPN that contains C-S is dual-homed
to two PEs, then all the other sites of that MVPN would have two
unicast VPN routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) to C-S, each with its RD.
As long as C-S is reachable via both PEs, a given downstream PE will
select one of the PEs connected to C-S as its Upstream PE for C-S.
We will refer to the other PE connected to C-S as the "Standby
Upstream PE". Note that if the connectivity to C-S through the
Primary Upstream PE becomes unavailable, then the PE will select the
Standby Upstream PE as its Upstream PE for C-S. When the Primary PE
later becomes available, then the PE will select the Primary Upstream
PE again as its Upstream PE. Such behavior is referred to as
"revertive" behavior and MUST be supported. Non-revertive behavior
refers to the behavior of continuing to select the backup PE as the
UMH even after the Primary has come up. This non-revertive behavior
MAY also be supported by an implementation and would be enabled
through some configuration.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
For readability, in the following sub-sections, the procedures are
described for BGP C-multicast Source Tree Join routes, but they apply
equally to BGP C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes for the case where
the customer RP is dual-homed (substitute "C-RP" to "C-S").
4.1. Downstream PE Behavior
When a (downstream) PE connected to some site of an MVPN needs to
send a C-multicast route (C-S, C-G), then following the procedures
specified in Section 11.1 of [RFC6514], the PE sends the C-multicast
route with an RT that identifies the Upstream PE selected by the PE
originating the route. As long as C-S is reachable via the Primary
Upstream PE, the Upstream PE is the Primary Upstream PE. If C-S is
reachable only via the Standby Upstream PE, then the Upstream PE is
the Standby Upstream PE.
If C-S is reachable via both the Primary and the Standby Upstream PE,
then in addition to sending the C-multicast route with an RT that
identifies the Primary Upstream PE, the downstream PE also originates
and sends a C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Standby
Upstream PE. The route that has the semantics of being a "standby"
C-multicast route is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
route", and is constructed as follows:
o the NLRI is constructed as the C-multicast route with an RT that
identifies the Primary Upstream PE, except that the RD is the same
as if the C-multicast route was built using the Standby Upstream
PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated to the unicast VPN
route advertised by the Standby Upstream PE for S and a Route
Target derived from the Standby Upstream PE's UMH route's VRF RT
Import EC);
o MUST carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (this is a new BGP
Community. Section 7.1 requested IANA to allocate value TBA1).
The Local Preference attribute of the normal and the standby
C-multicast route needs to be adjusted. so that, if a BGP peer
receives two C-multicast routes with the same NLRI, one carrying the
"Standby PE" community and the other one not carrying the "Standby
PE" community, then preference is given to the one not carrying the
"Standby PE" community. Such a situation can happen when, for
instance, due to transient unicast routing inconsistencies or lack of
support of the Standby PE community, two different downstream PEs
consider different Upstream PEs to be the primary one. In that case,
without any precaution taken, both Upstream PEs would process a
standby C-multicast route and possibly stop forwarding at the same
time. For this purpose, routes that carry the "Standby PE" BGP
Community MUST have the LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
Note that, when a PE advertises such a Standby C-multicast join for a
(C-S, C-G) it MUST join the corresponding P-tunnel.
If at some later point, the PE determines that C-S is no longer
reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE
becomes the Upstream PE, and the PE re-sends the C-multicast route
with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that now the
route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which results in
replacing the old route with a new route, with the only difference
between these routes being the presence/absence of the Standby PE BGP
Community). The LOCAL_PREF attribute MUST be set to zero.
4.2. Upstream PE Behavior
When a PE receives a C-multicast route for a particular (C-S, C-G),
and the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a
particular VRF on the PE, if the route carries the Standby PE BGP
Community, then the PE performs as follows:
when the PE determines (the use of the particular method to detect
the failure is outside the scope of this document) that C-S is not
reachable through some other PE, the PE SHOULD install VRF PIM
state corresponding to this Standby BGP C-multicast route (the
result will be that a PIM Join message will be sent to the CE
towards C-S, and that the PE will receive (C-S, C-G) traffic), and
the PE SHOULD forward (C-S, C-G) traffic received by the PE to
other PEs through a P-tunnel rooted at the PE.
Furthermore, irrespective of whether C-S carried in that route is
reachable through some other PE:
a) based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby BGP
C-multicast route, the PE MAY install VRF PIM state corresponding
to this BGP Source Tree Join route (the result will be that Join
messages will be sent to the CE toward C-S, and that the PE will
receive (C-S, C-G) traffic)
b) based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby BGP
C-multicast route, the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) traffic to other
PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the reachability of C-S
through some other PE. [note that this implies also doing a)]
Doing neither a) or b) for a given (C-S, C-G) is called "cold root
standby".
Doing a) but not b) for a given (C-S, C-G) is called "warm root
standby".
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
Doing b) (which implies also doing a)) for a given (C-S, C-G) is
called "hot root standby".
Note that, if an Upstream PE uses an S-PMSI only policy, it shall
advertise an S-PMSI for a (C-S, C-G) as soon as it receives a
C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G), normal or Standby; i.e., it shall
not wait for receiving a non-Standby C-multicast route before
advertising the corresponding S-PMSI.
Section 9.3.2 of [RFC6514], describes the procedures of sending a
Source-Active A-D Route as a result of receiving the C-multicast
route. These procedures MUST be followed for both the normal and
Standby C-multicast routes.
4.3. Reachability Determination
The Standby Upstream PE can use the following information to
determine that C-S can or cannot be reached through the Primary
Upstream PE:
o presence/absence of a unicast VPN route toward C-S
o supposing that the Standby Upstream PE is the egress of the tunnel
rooted at the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE can
determine the reachability of C-S through the Primary Upstream PE
based on the status of this tunnel, determined thanks to the same
criteria as the ones described in Section 3.1 (without using the
UMH selection procedures of Section 3);
o other mechanisms MAY be used.
4.4. Inter-AS
If the non-segmented inter-AS approach is used, the procedures
described in Section 4.1 through Section 4.3 can be applied.
When multicast VPNs are used in an inter-AS context with the
segmented inter-AS approach described in Section 9.2 of [RFC6514],
the procedures in this section can be applied.
A pre-requisite for the procedures described below to be applied for
a source of a given MVPN is:
o that any PE of this MVPN receives two or more Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D
Routes advertised by the AS of the source
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
o that these Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes have distinct Route
Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of section 9.2 of
[RFC6514]).
As an example, these conditions will be satisfied when the source is
dual-homed to an AS that connects to the receiver AS through two ASBR
using auto-configured RDs.
4.4.1. Inter-AS Procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR Fast Failover
The following procedure is applied by downstream PEs of an AS, for a
source S in a remote AS.
Additionally to choosing an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route advertised from
the AS of the source to construct a C-multicast route, as described
in section 11.1.3 [RFC6514], a downstream PE will choose a second
Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route advertised from the AS of the source and
use this route to construct and advertise a Standby C-multicast route
(C-multicast route carrying the Standby extended community), as
described in Section 4.1.
4.4.2. Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs
When an Upstream ASBR receives a C-multicast route, and at least one
of the RTs of the route matches one of the ASBR Import RT, the ASBR,
that supports this specification, MUST try to locate an Inter-AS
I-PMSI A-D Route whose RD and Source AS respectively match the RD and
Source AS carried in the C-multicast route. If the match is found,
and the C-multicast route carries the Standby PE BGP Community, then
the ASBR MUST perform as follows:
o if the route was received over iBGP and its LOCAL_PREF attribute
is set to zero, then it MUST be re-advertised in eBGP with a MED
attribute (MULTI_EXIT_DISC) set to the highest possible value
(0xffff)
o if the route was received over eBGP and its MED attribute set to
0xffff, then it MUST be re-advertised in iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF
attribute set to zero
Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification.
5. Hot Root Standby
The mechanisms defined in Section 4 and Section 3 can be used
together as follows.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
The principle is that, for a given VRF (or possibly only for a given
(C-S, C-G):
o downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based on
Section 4)
o Upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and thus will
forward traffic for a given multicast state as soon as they have
whether a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
C-multicast route for that state (or both)
o downstream PEs accept traffic from the primary or standby tunnel,
based on the status of the tunnel (based on Section 3)
Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in Section 4 and
Section 3 are for further study.
Note that the same level of protection would be achievable with a
simple C-multicast Source Tree Join route advertised to both the
primary and secondary Upstream PEs (carrying as Route Target extended
communities, the values of the VRF Route Import attribute of each VPN
route from each Upstream PEs). The advantage of using the Standby
semantic is that, supposing that downstream PEs always advertise a
Standby C-multicast route to the secondary Upstream PE, it allows to
choose the protection level through a change of configuration on the
secondary Upstream PE, without requiring any reconfiguration of all
the downstream PEs.
6. Duplicate Packets
Multicast VPN specifications [RFC6513] impose that a PE only forwards
to CEs the packets coming from the expected Upstream PE (Section 9.1
of [RFC6513]).
We draw the reader's attention to the fact that the respect of this
part of multicast VPN specifications is especially important when two
distinct Upstream PEs are susceptible to forward the same traffic on
P-tunnels at the same time in the steady state. That will be the
case when "hot root standby" mode is used (Section 4), and which can
also be the case if procedures of Section 3 are used and a) the rules
determining the status of a tree are not the same on two distinct
downstream PEs or b) the rule determining the status of a tree
depends on conditions local to a PE (e.g., the PE-P upstream link
being up).
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Standby PE Community
IANA is requested to allocate the BGP "Standby PE" community value
(TBA1) from the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities
registry using the First Come First Served registration policy.
7.2. BFD Discriminator
This document defines a new BGP optional transitive attribute, called
"BFD Discriminator". IANA is requested to allocate a codepoint
(TBA2) in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry to the BFD Discriminator
attribute.
IANA is requested to create a new BFD Mode sub-registry in the Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry. The registration
policies, per [RFC8126], for this sub-registry are according to
Table 1.
+-----------+-------------------------+
| Value | Policy |
+-----------+-------------------------+
| 0- 175 | IETF Review |
| 176 - 249 | First Come First Served |
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use |
| 255 | IETF Review |
+-----------+-------------------------+
Table 1: BFD Mode Sub-registry Registration Policies
IANA is requested to make initial assignments according to Table 2.
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | P2MP BFD Session | This document |
| 2- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
| 176 - 249 | Unassigned | This document |
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
Table 2: BFD Mode Sub-registry
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
7.3. BFD Discriminator Optional Sub-TLV Type
IANA is requested to create a new BFD Discriminator Optional sub-TLV
Type sub-registry in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). The registration
policies, per [RFC8126], for this sub-registry are according to
Table 3.
+-----------+-------------------------+
| Value | Policy |
+-----------+-------------------------+
| 0- 175 | IETF Review |
| 176 - 249 | First Come First Served |
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use |
| 255 | IETF Review |
+-----------+-------------------------+
Table 3: BFD Discriminator Optional Sub-TLV Type Sub-registry
Registration Policies
IANA is requested to make initial assignments according to Table 4.
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
| 176 - 249 | Unassigned | This document |
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
Table 4: BFD Discriminator Optional Sub-TLV Type Sub-registry
8. Security Considerations
This document describes procedures based on [RFC6513] and [RFC6514]
and hence shares the security considerations respectively represented
in these specifications.
This document uses P2MP BFD, as defined in [RFC8562], which, in turn,
is based on [RFC5880]. Security considerations relevant to each
protocol are discussed in the respective protocol specifications. An
implementation that supports this specification MUST use a mechanism
to control the maximum number of P2MP BFD sessions that can be active
at the same time.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
9. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Greg Reaume, Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang,
Martin Vigoureux, Adrian Farrel, and Zheng (Sandy) Zhang for their
reviews, useful comments, and helpful suggestions.
10. Contributor Addresses
Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
Rahul Aggarwal
Arktan
Email: raggarwa_1@xxxxxxxxx
Nehal Bhau
Cisco
Email: NBhau@xxxxxxxxx
Clayton Hassen
Bell Canada
2955 Virtual Way
Vancouver
CANADA
Email: Clayton.Hassen@xxxxxxx
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@xxxxxxxxx
Pradeep Jain
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
USA
Email: pradeep.jain@xxxxxxxxx
Jayant Kotalwar
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: Jayant.Kotalwar@xxxxxxxxx
Praveen Muley
Nokia
701 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A.
Email: praveen.muley@xxxxxxxxx
Ray (Lei) Qiu
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
Email: rqiu@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
Email: yakov@xxxxxxxxxxx
Kanwar Singh
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: kanwar.singh@xxxxxxxxx
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7431>.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Morin (editor)
Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: thomas.morin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robert Kebler (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
Email: rkebler@xxxxxxxxxxx
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft mVPN Fast Upstream Failover October 2020
Greg Mirsky (editor)
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx
Morin, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 24]
<<< text/html; charset="UTF-8"; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11.txt - draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-12.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
