draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02.txt   draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Zhang Network Working Group Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft Y. Rekhter Internet-Draft Y. Rekhter
Updates: 6514 (if approved) Juniper Networks Updates: 6514 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track A. Dolganow Intended status: Standards Track A. Dolganow
Expires: February 4, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent Expires: April 2, 2016 Alcatel-Lucent
August 3, 2015 September 30, 2015
Simulating "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels" with Ingress Replication Simulating "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels" with Ingress Replication
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02.txt draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
RFC 6513 described a method to support bidirectional C-flow using RFC 6513 described a method to support bidirectional C-flow using
"Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels". This document specifiess how "Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels". This document specifiess how
partial mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels can be simulated with Ingress partial mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels can be simulated with Ingress
Replication, instead of a real MP2MP tunnel. This enables a Service Replication, instead of a real MP2MP tunnel. This enables a Service
Provider to use Ingress Replication to offer transparent Bidir-PIM Provider to use Ingress Replication to offer transparent Bidir-PIM
service to its VPN customers. These specifications update RFC 6514. service to its VPN customers. This specification updates RFC 6514.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Control State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Section 11.2 of RFC 6513, "Partitioned Sets of PEs", describes two Section 11.2 of RFC 6513, "Partitioned Sets of PEs", describes two
methods of carrying bidirectional C-flow traffic over a provider core methods of carrying BIDIR-PIM [RFC5015] C-flow traffic over a
without using the core as RPL or requiring Designated Forwarder provider core without using the core as the Rendezvous Point Link
election. (RPL) or requiring Designated Forwarder election.
With these two methods, all PEs of a particular VPN are separated With these two methods, all PEs of a particular VPN are separated
into partitions, with each partition being all the PEs that elect the into partitions, with each partition being all the PEs that elect the
same PE as the Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. A PE must discard same PE as the Upstream PE with respect to the C-RPA. A PE must
bidirectional C-flow traffic from PEs that are not in the same discard bidirectional C-flow traffic from PEs that are not in the
partition as the PE itself. same partition as the PE itself.
In particular, Section 11.2.3 of RFC 6513, "Partial Mesh of MP2MP In particular, Section 11.2.3 of RFC 6513, "Partial Mesh of MP2MP
P-Tunnels", guarantees the above discard behavior without using an P-Tunnels", guarantees the above discard behavior without using an
extra PE Distinguisher label by having all PEs in the same partition extra PE Distinguisher label by having all PEs in the same partition
join a single MP2MP tunnel dedicated to that partition and use it to join a single MP2MP tunnel dedicated to that partition and use it to
transmit traffic. All traffic arriving on the tunnel will be from transmit traffic. All traffic arriving on the tunnel will be from
PEs in the same partition, so it will be always accepted. PEs in the same partition, so it will be always accepted.
RFC 6514 specifies BGP encodings and procedures used to implement RFC 6514 specifies BGP encodings and procedures used to implement
MVPN as specified in RFC 6513, while the details related to MP2MP MVPN as specified in RFC 6513, while the details related to MP2MP
tunnels are specified in [RFC7582]. tunnels are specified in [RFC7582].
RFC 7582 assumes that an MP2MP P-tunnel is realized either via Bidir- RFC 7582 assumes that an MP2MP P-tunnel is realized either via Bidir-
PIM, or via MP2MP mLDP. Each of them would require signaling and PIM [RFC5015], or via MP2MP mLDP [RFC6388]. Each of them would
state not just on PEs, but on the P routers as well. This document require signaling and state not just on PEs, but on the P routers as
describes how the MP2MP tunnel can be simulated with a mesh of P2MP well. This document describes how the MP2MP tunnel can be simulated
tunnels, each of which is instantiated by Ingress Replication with a mesh of P2MP tunnels, each of which is instantiated by Ingress
[I-D.ietf-bess-ir]. This does not require each PE on the MP2MP Replication (IR) [RFC6513, RFC6514]. Different from the procedures
tunnel to send an S-PMSI A-D route for the P2MP tunnel that the PE is in RFC 6514 that are used to set up the mesh of Ingress Replication
the root for, nor does it require each PE to send a Leaf A-D route to tunnels, the procedures in this document do not require each PE on
the root of each P2MP tunnel in the mesh. the MP2MP tunnel to send an S-PMSI A-D route for the P2MP tunnel that
the PE is the root for, nor does it require each PE to send a Leaf
A-D route to the root of each P2MP tunnel in the mesh.
With the use of Ingress Replication,this scheme has both the With the use of Ingress Replication, this scheme has both the
advantages and the disadvantages of Ingress Replication in general. advantages and the disadvantages of Ingress Replication in general.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document uses terminology from [RFC6513], [RFC6514], and This document uses terminology from [RFC5015], [RFC6513], [RFC6514],
[RFC7582]. and [RFC7582].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Operation 3. Operation
In following sections, the originator of an S-PMSI A-D route or Leaf In following sections, the originator of an S-PMSI A-D route or Leaf
A-D route is determined from the "originating router's IP address" A-D route is determined from the "originating router's IP address"
field of the corresponding route. field of the corresponding route.
3.1. Control State 3.1. Control State
If a PE, say PEx, is connected to a site of a given VPN, and PEx's If a PE, say PEx, is connected to a site of a given VPN, and PEx's
next hop interface to some C-RPA is a VRF interface, then PEx MUST next hop interface to some C-RPA is a VRF interface, then PEx MUST
advertises a (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, regardless of whether advertises a (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, regardless of whether
it has any local Bidir-PIM join states corresponding to the C-RPA it has any local Bidir-PIM join states corresponding to the C-RPA
learned from its CEs. It MAY also advertise one or more (C-*,C-G- learned from its CEs. It MAY also advertise one or more (C-*,C-G-
BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, just like how any other S-PMSI A-D routes BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route, if selective distribution trees are needed
are triggered. Here the C-G-BIDIR refers to a C-G where G is a for those C-G-BIDIR groups, and the corresponding C-RPA is in the
Bidir-PIM group, and the corresponding C-RPA is in the site that the site that the PEx connects to. For example, the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR)
PEx connects to. For example, the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes S-PMSI A-D routes could be triggered when the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR)
could be triggered when the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) traffic rate goes above traffic rate goes above a threshold (this may require measuring the
a threshold (this may require measuring the traffic in both traffic in both directions, due to the nature of Bidir-PIM), and fan-
directions, due to the nature of Bidir-PIM), and fan-out could also out could also be taken into account.
be taken into account.
The S-PMSI A-D routes include a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) with The S-PMSI A-D routes include a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) with
tunnel type set to Ingress Replication, with Leaf Information tunnel type set to Ingress Replication, with Leaf Information
Required flag set, with a downstream allocated MPLS label that other Required flag set, with a downstream allocated MPLS label that other
PEs in the same partition MUST use when sending relevant C-bidir PEs in the same partition MUST use when sending relevant C-bidir
flows to this PE, and with the Tunnel Identifier field in the PTA set flows to this PE, and with the Tunnel Identifier field in the PTA set
to a routable address of the originator. The label may be shared to a routable address of the originator. This specification does not
with other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for prevent sharing of labels between P-tunnels, such as a label being
extranet [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*- shared by a (C-*,C-*- BIDIR) and a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route
BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE originated by a given PE (note that other specs put constraints on
can optionally share a label. how that can be done, e.g. [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]).
If some other PE, PEy, receives and imports into one of its VRFs any If some other PE, PEy, receives and imports into one of its VRFs any
(C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies an IR P-tunnel, (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA specifies an IR P-tunnel,
and the VRF has any local Bidir-PIM join state that PEy has received and the VRF has any local Bidir-PIM join state that PEy has received
from its CEs, and if PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA from its CEs, and if PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE with respect
for those states, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route in response. to the C-RPA for those states, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route in
Or, if PEy has received and imported into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-*- response. Or, if PEy has received and imported into one of its VRFs
BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from PEx before, then upon receiving in the a (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from PEx before, then upon
VRF any local Bidir-PIM join state from its CEs with PEx being the receiving in the VRF any local Bidir-PIM join state from its CEs with
Upstream PE for those states' C-RPA, PEy MUST advertise a Leaf A-D PEx being the Upstream PE for those states' C-RPA, PEy MUST advertise
route. a Leaf A-D route.
The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514,
except that the Route Targets are set to the same value as in the except that the Route Targets are set to the same value as in the
corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be
imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route.
This is irrespective of whether the originator of the S-PMSI A-D This is irrespective of whether the originator of the S-PMSI A-D
route is the Upstream PE or not from a receiving PE's perspective. route is the Upstream PE or not from a receiving PE's perspective.
The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by PEy MUST be The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by PEy MUST be
allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic arrives with allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic arrives with
that label, the traffic can associated with the partition that label, the traffic can associated with the partition
(represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with other (represented by the PEx). This specification does not prevent
P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet sharing of labels between P-tunnels, such as a label being shared by
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and a (C-*,C-*- BIDIR) and a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) Leaf A-D route originated by
(C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can a given PE (note that other specs put constraints on how that can be
optionally share a label. done, e.g. [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]).
Note that RFC 6514 requires a PE/ASBR take no action with regard to a Note that RFC 6514 requires a PE/ASBR take no action with regard to a
Leaf A-D route unless that Leaf A-D route carries an IP Address Leaf A-D route unless that Leaf A-D route carries an IP Address
Specific RT identifying the PE/ASBR. This document removes that Specific RT identifying the PE/ASBR. This document removes that
requirement when the route key of a Leaf A-D route identifies a requirement when the route key of a Leaf A-D route identifies a
(C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI. (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI.
To speed up convergence (so that PEy starts receiving traffic from To speed up convergence (so that PEy starts receiving traffic from
its new Upstream PE immediately instead of waiting until the new Leaf its new Upstream PE immediately instead of waiting until the new Leaf
A-D route corresponding to the new Upstream PE is received by sending A-D route corresponding to the new Upstream PE is received by sending
PEs), PEy MAY advertise a Leaf A-D route even if does not choose PEx PEs), PEy MAY advertise a Leaf A-D route even if does not choose PEx
as its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA. With that, it will receive traffic as its Upstream PE with respect to the C-RPA. With that, it will
from all PEs, but some will arrive with the label corresponding to receive traffic from all PEs, but some will arrive with the label
its choice of Upstream PE while some will arrive with a different corresponding to its choice of Upstream PE while some will arrive
label, and the traffic in the latter case will be discarded. with a different label, and the traffic in the latter case will be
discarded.
Similar to the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) case, if PEy receives and imports into Similar to the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) case, if PEy receives and imports into
one of its VRFs any (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA one of its VRFs any (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route whose PTA
specifies an IR P-tunnel, and PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE wrt specifies an IR P-tunnel, and PEy chooses PEx as its Upstream PE with
the C-RPA, and it has corresponding local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state respect to the C-RPA, and it has corresponding local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR)
that it has received from its CEs in the VRF, PEy MUST advertise a join state that it has received from its CEs in the VRF, PEy MUST
Leaf A-D route in response. Or, if PEy has received and imported advertise a Leaf A-D route in response. Or, if PEy has received and
into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route before, then imported into one of its VRFs a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route
upon receiving its local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state from its CEs in before, then upon receiving its local (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join state from
the VRF, it MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route. its CEs in the VRF, it MUST advertise a Leaf A-D route.
The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is as specified in RFC 6514, The encoding of the Leaf A-D route is the similar to the (C-*,C-*-
except that the Route Targets are set to the same as in the BIDIR) case. Also similarly, PEy MAY advertise a Leaf A-D route even
corresponding S-PMSI A-D route so that the Leaf A-D route will be if it does not choose PEx as its Upstream PE with respect to the
imported by all VRFs that import the corresponding S-PMSI A-D route. C-RPA.
This is irrespective of whether the originator of the S-PMSI A-D
route is the Upstream PE or not from a receiving PE's perspective.
The label in the PTA of the Leaf A-D route originated by PEy MUST be
allocated specifically for PEx, so that when traffic arrives with
that label, the traffic can associated with the partition
(represented by the PEx). The label may be shared with other
P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]. For example, the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) and
(C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can
optionally share a label.
Whenever the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is Whenever the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) or (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is
withdrawn, or if PEy no longer chooses the originator PEx as its withdrawn, or if PEy no longer chooses the originator PEx as its
Upstream PE wrt C-RPA and PEy only advertises Leaf A-D routes in Upstream PE with respect to C-RPA and PEy only advertises Leaf A-D
response to its Upstream PE's S-PMSI A-D route, or if relevant local routes in response to its Upstream PE's S-PMSI A-D route, or if
join state is pruned, PEy MUST withdraw the corresponding Leaf A-D relevant local join state is pruned, PEy MUST withdraw the
route. corresponding Leaf A-D route.
3.2. Forwarding State 3.2. Forwarding State
The following specification regarding forwarding state matches the The following specification regarding forwarding state matches the
"When an S-PMSI is a 'Match for Transmission'" and "When an S-PMSI is "When an S-PMSI is a 'Match for Transmission'" and "When an S-PMSI is
a 'Match for Reception'" rules for "Flat Partitioning" method in a 'Match for Reception'" rules for "Flat Partitioning" method in
[RFC7582], except that the rules about (C-*,C-*) are not applicable, [RFC7582], except that the rules about (C-*,C-*) are not applicable,
because this document requires that (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes because this document requires that (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes
are always originated for a VPN that supports C-Bidir flows. are always originated for a VPN that supports C-Bidir flows.
For the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and For the (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and
imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt the C-RPA, or imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE with respect to the
if PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, PEy C-RPA, or if PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF,
maintains a (C-*,C-G-BIDR) forwarding state in the VRF, with the PEy maintains a (C-*,C-G-BIDR) forwarding state in the VRF, with the
Ingress Replication provider tunnel leaves being the originators of Ingress Replication provider tunnel leaves being the originators of
the S-PMSI A-D route and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant the S-PMSI A-D route and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant
Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field contains the Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field contains the
same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI
A-D route advertised by the Upstream PE. A-D route advertised by the Upstream PE.
For the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and For the (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route that a PEy receives and
imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE wrt a C-RPA, or if imports into one of its VRFs from its Upstream PE with respect to a
PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF, it maintains C-RPA, or if PEy itself advertises the S-PMSI A-D route in the VRF,
appropriate forwarding states in the VRF for the ranges of it maintains appropriate forwarding states in the VRF for the ranges
bidirectional groups for which the C-RPA is responsible. The of bidirectional groups for which the C-RPA is responsible. The
provider tunnel leaves are the originators of the S-PMSI A-D route provider tunnel leaves are the originators of the S-PMSI A-D route
and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant Leaf A-D routes are and all relevant Leaf-A-D routes. The relevant Leaf A-D routes are
the routes whose Route Key field contains the same information as the the routes whose Route Key field contains the same information as the
MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route advertised by MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route advertised by
the Upstream PE. This is for the so-called "Sender Only Branches" the Upstream PE. This is for the so-called "Sender Only Branches"
where a router only has data to send upstream towards C-RPA but no where a router only has data to send upstream towards C-RPA but no
explicit join state for a particular bidirectional group. Note that explicit join state for a particular bidirectional group. Note that
the traffic must be sent to all PEs (not just the Upstream PE) in the the traffic must be sent to all PEs (not just the Upstream PE) in the
partition, because they may have specific (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join states partition, because they may have specific (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) join states
that this PEy is not aware of, while there is no corresponding that this PEy is not aware of, while there is no corresponding
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 8
The relevant Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field The relevant Leaf A-D routes are the routes whose Route Key field
contains the same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*, contains the same information as the MCAST-VPN NLRI of the (C-*,
C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route originated by the Upstream PE. If there C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route originated by the Upstream PE. If there
is no (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from its Upstream PE either, is no (C-*,C-*-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route from its Upstream PE either,
then the provider tunnel has an empty set of leaves and PEy does not then the provider tunnel has an empty set of leaves and PEy does not
forward relevant traffic across the provider network. forward relevant traffic across the provider network.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues. Security considerations This document raises no new security issues. Security considerations
for the base protocol are covered in [RFC6514]. for the base protocol are covered in RFC6513 and RFC6514.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations. This document has no IANA considerations.
This section should be removed by the RFC Editor prior to final This section should be removed by the RFC Editor prior to final
publication. publication.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 12, line 30 skipping to change at page 11, line 30
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7582] Rosen, E., Wijnands, IJ., Cai, Y., and A. Boers, [RFC7582] Rosen, E., Wijnands, IJ., Cai, Y., and A. Boers,
"Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN): Using "Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN): Using
Bidirectional P-Tunnels", RFC 7582, DOI 10.17487/RFC7582, Bidirectional P-Tunnels", RFC 7582, DOI 10.17487/RFC7582,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7582>. July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7582>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-ir] [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
Rosen, E., Subramanian, K., and J. Zhang, "Ingress "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
draft-ietf-bess-ir-01 (work in progress), May 2015. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet] [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet]
Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y., and T. Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y., and T.
Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs", Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs",
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-02 (work in progress),
May 2015. May 2015.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang Zhaohui Zhang
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
96 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/