Network Working Group Rahul Aggarwal (Juniper Networks) Internet Draft Wim Henderickx (Alcatel-Lucent) Intended Status: Proposed Standard Praveen Muley (Alcatel-Lucent) Expiration Date: January 2010 Ray Qiu (Alcatel-Lucent) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Use of Wildcard in S-PMSI Auto-Discovery Routes draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Abstract The current MVPN specifications do not define encoding and procedures for advertising in a single route binding of multiple multicast streams of a given MVPN customer to a single provider's tunnel. This document defines such encoding and procedures. These procedures allow in certain situations to reduce MVPN control plane load (note though that these procedures have no impact on the data plane load). The procedures specified in this document assume that BGP is used for transmission of MVPN customers' routing information within the service provider(s) infrastructure. Specification of Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 1. Introduction An S-PMSI auto-discovery route (A-D route), as defined in [MVPN-BGP], advertises binding of a given MVPN customer multicast flow (C- multicast flow) to a particular provider tunnel (P-tunnel). While the definition and procedures specified in [MVPN-BGP] support binding of multiple C-multicast flows to the same P-tunnel (by having multiple S-PMSI A-D routes advertise the same P-tunnel), they do not support the ability to advertise such a binding in a single S-PMSI A-D route. The ability of a PE to advertise binding of multiple C-multicast flows, all originating from the site(s) of a given MVPN connected to that PE, to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route, rather than in multiple S-PMSI A-D routes (one per each C-multicast flow), improves control plane scalability, as it reduces the number of S- PMSI A-D routes. Note however, that the ability to advertise binding of multiple C-multicast flows to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route has no impact on the forwarding/data plane scalability, as it does not reduces the number of P-tunnels, relative to the scenario where each C-multicast flow is advertised via its own S-PMSI A-D Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 route, while all these routes advertise the same P-tunnel. One possible application of advertising binding of multiple C- multicast flows to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route is when these are PIM-SM in ASM mode flows. In this case a PE router connected to an MVPN customer's site that contains customer's RP (C- RP) could bind all the C-multicast flows traveling along a customer's RPT tree to a single P-tunnel, and advertise such binding in a single S-PMSI A-D route. Likewise, a PE router connected to an MVPN customer's site that contains multiple (multicast) sources, all sending to the same (multicast) group, could bind all the C-mulicast flows for that group originated by these sources to a single P- tunnel, and advertise such binding in a single S-PMSI A-D route. Another possible application of advertising binding of multiple C- multicast flows to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route is when these are PIM-Bidir flows. In this case a PE router could bind to a single P-tunnel all the C-multicast flows for the same (multicast) group that have been originated within the site(s) of a given MVPN connected to that PE, and advertise such binding in a single S-PMSI A-D route. Another possible application of advertising binding of multiple C- multicast flows to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route is when these are PIM-SM in SSM mode flows. In this case a PE router could bind to a single P-tunnel all the C-multicast flows coming from a given (multicast) source located in a site connected to that PE. Yet another possible application of advertising binding of multiple C-multicast flows to a single P-tunnel in a single S-PMSI A-D route is to carry in that P-tunnel all the C-multicast flows originated within the site(s) of a given MVPN connected to a given PE. This document defines OPTIONAL extensions to the procedures specified in [MVPN-BGP]. These extensions allow to advertise in a single S-PMSI A-D route binding of multiple C-multicast flows to a single P-tunnel. The extensions are based on the notion of a "wildcard". In order to use the extensions specified in this document with a particular MVPN, all the PEs that have sites of that MVPN MUST support these extensions. The procedures specified in this document assume that BGP is used for transmission of MVPN customers' multicast (C-multicast) routing information within the service provider(s) infrastructure among the PE routers ([MVPN-BGP]). Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 2. Encoding of wildcard in S-PMSI A-D routes As specified in [MVPN-BGP], the NLRI of an S-PMSI A-D route has the following format: +-----------------------------------+ | RD (8 octets) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Source Length (1 octet) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Source (Variable) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Group Length (1 octet) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Group (Variable) | +-----------------------------------+ | Originating Router's IP Addr | +-----------------------------------+ This document uses a zero value in Mutlicast Source Length or Multicast Group Length field to indicate a wildcard value for the respective field. This document defines procedures for the following two combinations of wildcard S-PMSI encodings: + (C-*, C-G): Source Wildcard, Group specified + (C-S, C-*): Source specified, Group Wildcard + (C-*, C-*): Source Wildcard, Group Wildcard 3. Procedures for (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes This document covers the use of (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes for only the C-multicast flows when C-G is not in the SSM range. Use of (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes for other C-multicast flows is outside the scope of this document. When a PE advertises an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-*, C-G), the PE MUST use the P-tunnel advertised in this route for sending any PIM-SM in ASM mode or PIM-Bidir C-multicast flows for that C-G that it needs to send (downstream) to other PEs, except for the C-multicast flows that the PE already bound to specific (C-S, C- G)s S-PMSIs. Just like with (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes, the criteria for originating (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes is local to the originating PE. When a PE receives an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-*, C- Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 G), the PE follows the procedures specified in [MVPN-BGP], except for the case where the PE does not originate a Shared Tree Join C- multicast route for (C-*, C-G), and for every Source Tree Join C- multicast route for (C-S, C-G) originated by the PE, the PE already accepted a (specific) (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route. In that case the PE need not take any further action upon receiving the S-PMSI A-D route with (C-*, C-G) NLRI. If an implementation supports (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes, then the implementation MUST support receiving (C-S, C-*) and (C-*, C-*) S- PMSI A-D routes, and MAY support originating (C-S, C-*) and (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes. 4. Procedures for (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes This document covers the use of (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes for only the C-multicast flows when C-G is in the SSM range. Use of (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes for other C-multicast flows is outside the scope of this document. When a PE advertises an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-S, C-*), the PE MUST use the P-tunnel advertised in this route for sending any PIM-SM in SSM mode C-multicast flows for that C-S that it needs to send (downstream) to other PEs, except for the C-multicast flows that the PE already bound to specific (C-S, C-G)s S-PMSIs. Just like with (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes, the criteria for originating (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes is local to the originating PE. When a PE receives an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-S, C-*), the PE follows the procedures specified in [MVPN-BGP], except for the case where for every Source Tree Join C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G) originated by the PE, the PE already accepted a (specific) (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route. In that case the PE need not take any further action upon receiving the S-PMSI A-D route with (C-S, C-*) NLRI. If an implementation supports (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes, then the implementation MUST support receiving (C-*, C-G) and (C-*, C-*) S- PMSI A-D routes, and MAY support originating (C-*, C-G) and (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes. Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 5. Procedures for (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes are expected to be used when for a given MVPN a PE has a policy not to use I-PMSI for carrying multicast traffic originated in the MVPN's site(s) connected to that PE (this is known as "S-PMSI only" mode). When a PE advertises an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-*, C-*), the PE MUST use the P-tunnel advertised in this route for sending any C-multicast flows that it needs to send (downstream) to other PEs, except for the C-multicast flows that the PE already bound to either specific (C-*, C-G)s S-PMSIs, or specific (C-S, C-G)s S- PMSIs. Just like with (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D routes, the criteria for originating (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes is local to the originating PE. To facilitate description of the procedures for receiving (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes, we introduce the following definitions: + We say that an (C-S, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route received by a PE "matches" a Source Tree Join C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G) originated by that PE if the upstream PE of that route is the PE that originates the S-PMSI A-D route. + We say that an (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route received by a PE "matches" a Source Tree Join C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G) originated by that PE if the upstream PE of that route is the PE that originates the S-PMSI A-D route, and C-G is not in the SSM range. + We say that an (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route received by a PE "matches" a Shared Tree Join C-multicast route for (C-*, C-G) originated by that PE if the upstream PE of that route is the PE that originates the S-PMSI A-D route, and C-G is not in the SSM range. + We say that an (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D route received by a PE "matches" a Source Tree Join C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G) originated by that PE if the upstream PE of that route is the PE that originates the S-PMSI A-D route, and C-G is in the SSM range. When a PE receives an S-PMSI A-D route whose NLRI specifies (C-*, C-*), the PE follows the procedures specified in [MVPN-BGP], except when: Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 + for all the Source Tree Join C-multicast routes originated by the PE, the PE already accepted either a matching (C-S, C-G), or a matching (C-*, C-G), or a matching (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D route, AND + for all the Shared tree Join C-multicast routes originated by the PE, the PE already accepted a matching (C-*, C-G) S-PMSI A-D route, in which case the PE need not take any further action upon receiving the S-PMSI A-D route with NLRI (C-*, C-*). If an implementation supports (C-*, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes, then the implementation MUST support receiving (C-*, C-G) and (C-S, C-*) S- PMSI A-D routes, and MAY support originating (C-*, C-G) and (C-S, C-*) S-PMSI A-D routes. 6. IANA Considerations This document introduces no new IANA Considerations. 7. Security Considerations This document introduces no new Security Considerations, above and beyond what is already specified in [MVPN] and [MVPN-BGP]. 8. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Thomas Morin for his contributions, review, and comments. 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal [Editors], "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast, work in progress [MVPN-BGP], R. Aggarwal, E. Rosen, T. Morin, Y. Rekhter, "BGP Encodings for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", draft-ietf- l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp, work in progress Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-01.txt July 2009 10. Non-normative References 11. Author Information Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks, Inc. e-mail: rahul@juniper.net Wim Henderickx Alcatel-Lucent e-mail: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be Praveen Muley Alcatel-Lucent e-mail: Praveen.Muley@alcatel-lucent.com Ray Qiu Alcatel-Lucent e-mail: Ray.Qiu@alcatel-lucent.com Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. e-mail: yakov@juniper.net Aggarwal, Rekhter [Page 8]