draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-11.txt   draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12.txt 
BESS WG A. Dolganow BESS WG A. Dolganow
Internet-Draft J. Kotalwar Internet-Draft J. Kotalwar
Updates: 6514 6625 7524 (if approved) Nokia Updates: 6514 6625 7524 (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen, Ed.
Expires: April 7, 2019 Z. Zhang Expires: April 12, 2019 Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
October 4, 2018 October 9, 2018
Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast VPN Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast VPN
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-11 draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12
Abstract Abstract
The MVPN specifications provide procedures to allow a multicast The MVPN specifications provide procedures to allow a multicast
ingress node to invoke "explicit tracking" for a multicast flow or ingress node to invoke "explicit tracking" for a multicast flow or
set of flows, thus learning the egress nodes for that flow or set of set of flows, thus learning the egress nodes for that flow or set of
flows. However, the specifications are not completely clear about flows. However, the specifications are not completely clear about
how the explicit tracking procedures work in certain scenarios. This how the explicit tracking procedures work in certain scenarios. This
document provides the necessary clarifications. It also specifies a document provides the necessary clarifications. It also specifies a
new, optimized explicit tracking procedure. This new procedure new, optimized explicit tracking procedure. This new procedure
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 April 7, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
5.2. Responding to the LIR-pF Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. Responding to the LIR-pF Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. When the Egress Node is an ABR or ASBR . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. When the Egress Node is an ABR or ASBR . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Ingress Node Handling of Received Leaf A-D Routes with 6. Ingress Node Handling of Received Leaf A-D Routes with
LIR-pF Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 LIR-pF Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6513] and [RFC6514] define the "Selective Provider Multicast [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] define the "Selective Provider Multicast
Service Interface Auto-Discovery route" (S-PMSI A-D route). Service Interface Auto-Discovery route" (S-PMSI A-D route).
Per those RFCs, the S-PMSI A-D route contains a Network Layer Per those RFCs, the S-PMSI A-D route contains a Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI) field that identifies a particular Reachability Information (NLRI) field that identifies a particular
multicast flow. In the terminology of those RFCs, each flow is multicast flow. In the terminology of those RFCs, each flow is
denoted by (C-S,C-G), where C-S is an IP source address and C-G is an denoted by (C-S,C-G), where C-S is an IP source address and C-G is an
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
to "see" past the boundaries of the segmentation domain. to "see" past the boundaries of the segmentation domain.
* The prior specifications do not make it very clear whether a * The prior specifications do not make it very clear whether a
segmented tunnel egress node, upon receiving an S-PMSI A-D segmented tunnel egress node, upon receiving an S-PMSI A-D
route whose PTA specifies "no tunnel information present", is route whose PTA specifies "no tunnel information present", is
expected to forward the S-PMSI A-D route, with the same PTA, to expected to forward the S-PMSI A-D route, with the same PTA, to
the next segmentation domain. the next segmentation domain.
These problems are addressed in Section 5.3. These problems are addressed in Section 5.3.
This document clarifies the procedures for originating and receiving
S-PMSI A-D routes and Leaf A-D routes. This document also adds new
procedures to allow more efficient explicit tracking. The procedures
being clarified and/or extended are discussed in multiple places in
the documents being updated.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. The Explicit Tracking Flags 2. The Explicit Tracking Flags
[RFC6514] defines one flag in the PTA, the "Leaf Information [RFC6514] defines one flag in the PTA, the "Leaf Information
Required" (LIR) flag, that is used for explicit tracking. Required" (LIR) flag, that is used for explicit tracking.
skipping to change at page 16, line 18 skipping to change at page 16, line 18
[BIER-MVPN]. [BIER-MVPN].
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Robert Kebler for his ideas and comments. The authors wish to thank Robert Kebler for his ideas and comments.
We also thank Stephane Litkowski for his thorough review and useful We also thank Stephane Litkowski for his thorough review and useful
suggestions. suggestions.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
The LIR-pF flag needs to be added to the "P-Multicast Service IANA is requested to add a new entry to the the "P-Multicast Service
Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Attribute Flags" in the "Border Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Attribute Flags" in the "Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry. This registry is Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry. This registry is
defined in [RFC7902]. The requested value is Bit Position 2. This defined in [RFC7902]. The new entry is:
document should be the reference.
o Value: 2
o Name: LIR-PF
o Description: Leaf Information Required per-Flow
o Reference: this document.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations of [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] apply. The Security Considerations of [RFC6513] and [RFC6514] apply.
By setting the LIR-pF flag in a single wildcard S-PMSI A-D route, a By setting the LIR-pF flag in a single wildcard S-PMSI A-D route, a
large number of Leaf A-D routes can be elicited. If this flag is set large number of Leaf A-D routes can be elicited. If this flag is set
when not desired (through either error or malfeasance), a significant when not desired (through either error or malfeasance), a significant
increase in control plane overhead can result. The specification of increase in control plane overhead can result. The specification of
counter-measures for this problem is outside the scope of this counter-measures for this problem is outside the scope of this
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/