wdiff rfc9026.original rfc9026.txt

Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Morin, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9026 Orange
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track R. Kebler, Ed.
Expires: July 25, 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
G. Mirsky, Ed.
ZTE Corp.
January 21,
April 2021

Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-15

Abstract

This document defines Multicast Virtual Private Network (VPN)
extensions and procedures that allow fast failover for upstream
failures by allowing downstream Provider Edges (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 Bidirectional
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks Networks"
(RFC 8562) and the new BGP Attribute - Attribute, BFD Discriminator. Also, the this
document introduces a new BGP Community, Standby PE, extending BGP
Multicast VPN (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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 July 25, 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026.

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
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 Used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 This Document
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Abbreviations
3. UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Determining the Status of a Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. MVPN Tunnel Root Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 Leaf-Initiated P-Tunnels
3.1.5. (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) Counter Information . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6. BFD Discriminator Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7. Per PE-CE Link BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 13 per PE-CE Link
3.1.8. Operational Considerations for Monitoring a P-Tunnel's
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Standby C-multicast C-Multicast Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Downstream PE Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2. Upstream PE Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Reachability Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. Inter-AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.1. Inter-AS Procedures for downstream Downstream PEs, ASBR Fast
Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.2. Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Hot Root Standby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Duplicate Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. Standby PE Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3. BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1.
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2.
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

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).
(C-S,C-G). One of the optional methods uses [RFC8562] and the new
BGP Attribute - Attribute, BFD Discriminator. None of these methods provide a
"fast failover" solution when used alone, 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.
Community, that can speed up failover by not requiring any multicast Multicast
VPN (MVPN) routing message exchange at recovery time.

Section 5 describes a "hot leaf root standby" mechanism that can be used
to improve failover time in MVPN. The approach combines mechanisms
defined in Section Sections 3 and Section 4, 4 and 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 and allow 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 combined with the redundancy provided by a
standby PE connected to the multicast flow source. PEs that support
these mechanisms would converge faster and thus provide a more stable
multicast service. In the case that a BGP implementation does not
recognize or is configured not to support the extensions defined in
this document, the implementation will continue to provide the
multicast service, as described in [RFC6513].

2. Conventions used Used in this document 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 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' "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' "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 Abbreviations

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 Provider-Tunnel

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

3. UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status

Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] describes procedures used by a multicast VPN an MVPN
downstream PE to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a
given (C-S, C-G). (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) (C-S,C-G) state is the S-PMSI
tunnel advertised by that Upstream PE for this (C-S, C-G) that (C-S,C-G) and imported
into that VRF, or 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 one, 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) (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.

There are three options specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] for a
downstream PE to select an Upstream PE.

* The first two options select the Upstream PE from a candidate PE
set either based either 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.

b. does not advertise any x-PMSI applicable to the given (C-S,
C-G)
(C-S,C-G) but has associated a VRF Route Import BGP Extended
Community 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 S-PMSI S-PMSIs 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)
(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.

* 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. subsections. The
optional procedures described in this section also handle the case
when 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, 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 subsection 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

When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition to
consider is whether the root of the tunnel, as specified in the
x-PMSI Tunnel attribute, is reachable through unicast routing tables.
In this case, the 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. BGP next-hop tracking
monitors BGP next-hop address changes in the routing table. In
general, when a change is detected, it performs a next-hop scan to
find if any of the next hops in the BGP table is affected and updates
it accordingly.

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, reachable will be
unnecessary duplication and thus will thus not bring any specific benefit.

3.1.2. PE-P Upstream Link Status

When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition to
consider is whether 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
Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090]) is in place for the link requires
careful consideration and coordination of defect detection intervals
for the link and the tunnel. When using multi-layer protection,
particular consideration must be given to the interaction of defect
detections at different network layers. It is recommended to use
longer detection intervals at the higher layers. Some
recommendations suggest using a multiplier of 3 or larger, e.g., 10
msec detection for the link failure detection and at least 100 msec
for the tunnel failure detection. In many cases, it is not practical
to use both protection methods simultaneously 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 Label Switched
Path (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 as to be a valid
candidate UMH.

3.1.4. Leaf-initiated P-tunnels Leaf-Initiated P-Tunnels

An Upstream PE MUST be removed from the UMH candidate list for a
given (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) if the P-tunnel (I-PMSI or S-PMSI) for this (S, G) (S,G) is leaf-triggered
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) (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 per (C-S,C-G)
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 execute its actions. Determining that
a tunnel is probably down by waiting for enough packets to fail to
arrive as expected is a heuristic and operational matter that depends
on the maximum inter-packet time. A timeout of three seconds is a
generally suitable default waiting period to ascertain that the
tunnel is down, though other values would be needed for atypical
conditions.

In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with the method
described in Section 5, no prior knowledge of the rate or maximum
inter-packet time on the multicast streams is required; downstream
PEs can periodically compare actual packet reception statistics on
the two P-tunnels to determine when one of them is down. The
detailed specification of this mechanism is outside the scope of this
document.

3.1.6. BFD Discriminator Attribute

The 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. A P2MP BFD session can be instantiated using a
mechanism other than the BFD Discriminator attribute, e.g., MPLS LSP
Ping ([I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd]). ([MPLS-P2MP-BFD]). The description of these methods is outside
the scope of this document.

This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP
attribute called the "BFD Discriminator". Discriminator" (38). It is an optional
transitive BGP attribute. Thus Thus, it is expected that an
implementation that does not recognize or is configured not to
support this attribute, as if the attribute was unrecognized, follows
procedures defined for optional transitive path attributes in
Section 5 of [RFC4271]. In See Section 7.2, IANA is requested to allocate the
codepoint value (TBA2). 7.2 for more information. The
format of this attribute is shown in Figure 1.

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BFD Discriminator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Format of the BFD Discriminator Attribute

Where:

BFD Mode field is one 1 octet long. This specification defines the P2MP
BFD Session as value 1 Section 7.2. (Section 7.2).

BFD Discriminator field is four 4 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:

* Type -

Type: a one-octet-long 1-octet-long field that characterizes the interpretation
of the Value field (Section 7.3)

* Length -

Length: a one-octet-long 1-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
field in octets

* Value -

Value: a variable-length field. field

All multibyte fields in TLVs defined in this specification are in
network byte order.

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

An optional Source IP Address TLV is defined in this document. The
Source IP Address TLV MUST be used when the value of the BFD Mode
field's value is P2MP BFD Session. The BFD Discriminator attribute
that does not include the Source IP Address TLV MUST be handled
according to the "attribute discard" approach, as defined in
[RFC7606]. For the Source IP Address TLV TLV, fields are set as follows:

* The Type field is set to 1 Section 7.3.

o (Section 7.3).

* The Length field is 4 for the IPv4 address family and 16 for the
IPv6 address family. The TLV is considered malformed if the field
is set to any other value.

* The Value field contains the address associated with the
MultipointHead of the P2MP BFD session.

The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed if its
length is smaller than 11 octets or if Optional TLVs are present, present but
not well-formed. well formed. If the attribute is deemed to be 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 session, the Upstream PE:

* MUST initiate the BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
MultipointHead as described in [RFC8562];

* when transmitting BFD Control packets MUST set the IP destination
address of the inner IP header to the internal loopback address
127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 [RFC1122]. For IPv6, it MUST use the
loopback address ::1/128 [RFC4291].

o [RFC4291];

* MUST use the IP address included in the Source IP Address TLV of
the BFD Discriminator attribute as the source IP address when
transmitting BFD Control packets;

* MUST include the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
Route with the value set to the My Discriminator value;

* 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 that 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 resent with the only change between the
previous advertisement and the new advertisement to be the inclusion
of the BFD Discriminator attribute.

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:

* the x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent resent with the only change between
the previous advertisement and the new advertisement be the
exclusion of the BFD Discriminator attribute;

* the P2MP BFD session MUST be deleted. The session MAY be deleted
after some configurable delay, which should have a reasonable
default.

3.1.6.2. Downstream PE Procedures

Upon receiving the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
Route, the downstream PE:

* MUST associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the
P-tunnel originating from the Upstream PE and the IP address of
the Upstream PE;

* MUST create a P2MP BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
MultipointTail as described in [RFC8562];

* to properly demultiplex BFD session session, MUST use:

- the IP address in the Source IP Address TLV included the BFD
Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route;

- the value of the BFD Discriminator field in the BFD
Discriminator attribute;

- the x-PMSI Tunnel Identifier [RFC6514] the BFD Control packet
was received on.

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 packet, or associated
with if the BFD session
Detection Timer associated with the BFD session 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 to be 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 to be in the Up state. That MAY be
determined from the state of a P2MP BFD session with the Standby
Upstream PE as the MultipointHead.

If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established when the
downstream PE receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route with the BFD
Discriminator attribute, the downstream PE MUST associate the value
of the 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 set up using the BFD
Discriminator attribute, and both the downstream PE receives the new
x-PMSI A-D Route without the BFD Discriminator attribute, attribute and the
x-PMSI A-D Route was processed without any error as per the relevant
specifications, the then:

* The downstream PE:

o PE MUST stop processing BFD Control packets for
this P2MP BFD session;

o the

* The P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel MUST be deleted.
The session MAY be deleted after some configurable delay, which
should have a reasonable default.

* The downstream PE MUST NOT switch the traffic to the Standby
Upstream PE.

3.1.7. Per PE-CE Link BFD Discriminator per PE-CE Link

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 MUST set the bfd.LocalDiag of the P2MP BFD
session to Concatenated Path Down or Reverse Concatenated Path Down
(per Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880]), of [RFC5880]) unless it switches to a new PE- CE 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.

3.1.8. Operational Considerations for Monitoring a P-Tunnel's Status

Several methods to monitor the status of a P-tunnel are described in
Section 3.1.

Tracking the root of an MVPN (Section 3.1.1) concludes about reveals the status of a
P-tunnel based on the control plane information. Because, in
general, the MPLS data plane is not fate-sharing fate sharing with the control
plane, this method might produce false positive false-positive or false
negative false-negative
alarms, For for example, resulting in tunnels that are considered as
being up Up but
are not able to reach the root, or ones that are declared down
prematurely. On the other hand, because BGP next-hop tracking is
broadly supported and deployed, this method might be the easiest to
deploy.

Method

The method described in Section 3.1.2 monitors the state of the data
plane but only for an egress P-PE link of a P-tunnel. As a result,
network failures that affect upstream links might not be detected
using this method and the MVPN convergence would be determined by the
convergence of the BGP control plane.

Using the state change of a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP as the trigger to re-
evaluate the status of the P-tunnel (Section 3.1.3) relies on the
mechanism used to monitor the state of the P2MP LSP.

The method described in Section 3.1.4 is simple and is safe from
causing false alarms, e.g., considering a tunnel operationally up Up
even though its data path has a defect or, conversely, declaring a
tunnel failed when it is unaffected. But the method applies to a
sub-set
subset of MVPNs, those that use the leaf-triggered x-PMSI tunnels.

Though some MVPN MVPNs might be used to provide a multicast service with
predictable interpacket interval inter-packet intervals (Section 3.1.5), the number of
such cases seem limited.

Monitoring the status of a P-tunnel using p2mp a P2MP BFD session
(Section 3.1.6) may produce the most accurate and expedient failure
notification of all monitoring methods discussed. On the other hand,
it requires careful consideration of the additional load of BFD
sessions onto network and PE nodes. Operators should consider the
rate of BFD Control packets transmitted by root PEs combined with the
number of such PEs in the network. In addition, the number of P2MP
BFD sessions per PE determines the amount of state information that a
PE maintains.

4. Standby C-multicast 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, though to simplify
the description, the case of dual-homing dual homing is described. In the case
where more than two PEs are connected to the C-s C-S site, selection of
the Standby PE can be performed using one of the methods of selecting
a UMH. Details of the selection are outside the scope of this
document. The procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow
the same UMH selection procedure, as specified in [RFC6513],
regardless of whether the PE selected based on its IP address, the
hashing algorithm described in section Section 5.1.3 of [RFC6513], or the
Installed UMH Route. The consistency of the UMH selection method
used among all PEs is expected to be provided by the management
plane. The procedures assume that if a site of a given MVPN that
contains C-S is
dual-homed 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 own 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. Selection of the behavior, revertive or
non-revertive, is an operational issue, but it MUST be consistent on
all PEs in the given MVPN. While revertive is considered the default
behavior, there might be cases where the switchover to the standby
tunnel does not affect other services and provides the required
quality of service. An In this case, an operator might use non-revertive non-
revertive behavior to avoid unnecessary in such case switchover and thus minimize
disruption to the multicast service.

For readability, in the following sub-sections, subsections, 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 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), (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

* 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

* It MUST carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (this is a new BGP
Community. (0xFFFF0009); see
Section 7.1 requested IANA to allocate value TBA1). 7.1.

The Local Preference attribute of both the normal and the standby
C-multicast route needs to be adjusted. so that, adjusted as follows: 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 the value lower
than the value specified as the LOCAL_PREF attribute for the route
that does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community. The value of zero
is RECOMMENDED.

Note that, that when a PE advertises such a Standby C-multicast join for a
(C-S, C-G)
(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 resends the C-multicast route
with the 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 absence of the Standby PE BGP
Community). The new Upstream PE must set the LOCAL_PREF attribute
for that C-multicast route to the same value as when the Standby PE
BGP Community was included in the advertisement.

4.2. Upstream PE Behavior

When a PE supporting this specification receives a C-multicast route
for a particular (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) for which all of the following are true:

* the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a
particular VRF on the PE;

* the route carries the Standby PE BGP Community; and

* the PE determines (via a method of failure detection that is
outside the scope of this document) that C-S is not reachable
through some other PE (more details are in Section 4.3),

then the PE MAY 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)
(C-S,C-G) traffic), and the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) (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) (C-S,C-G) traffic); and

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) (C-S,C-G) traffic to
other PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the reachability of
C-S through some other PE. [note (note that this implies also doing a)]
step a.)

Doing neither a) or b) step a nor step b for a given (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) is called "cold
root standby".

Doing a) step a but not b) step b for a given (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) is called "warm
root standby".

Doing b) step b (which implies also doing a)) step a) for a given (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G)
is called "hot root standby".

Note that, if an Upstream PE uses an S-PMSI only S-PMSI-only policy, it shall
advertise an S-PMSI for a (C-S, C-G) (C-S,C-G) as soon as it receives a
C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G), (C-S,C-G), normal or Standby; i.e., that is, it shall
not wait for receiving a non-Standby C-multicast route before
advertising the corresponding S-PMSI.

Section 9.3.2 of [RFC6513], [RFC6513] 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:

* 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);

* 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 MVPNs are used in an inter-AS context with the segmented inter-AS inter-
AS approach described in Section 9.2 of [RFC6514], the procedures in
this section can be applied.

A pre-requisite

Prerequisites for the procedures described below to be applied for a
source of a given MVPN is:

o are:

* that any PE of this MVPN receives two or more Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D
Routes advertised by the AS of the source

* that these Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes have distinct Route
Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of section Section 9.2 of
[RFC6514]).

As an example, these conditions will be satisfied when the source is
dual-homed
dual homed to an AS that connects to the receiver AS through two ASBR
using auto-configured autoconfigured RDs.

4.4.1. Inter-AS Procedures for downstream 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

In additional 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 Section 11.1.3 of [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, RTs, the ASBR, ASBR
that supports this specification, 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 implementation that supports this specification MUST be
configurable to perform as follows:

o if

* 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
(0xffff).

* If the route was received over eBGP and its MED attribute is set
to 0xffff, then it MUST be re-advertised in iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF
attribute set to zero zero.

Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification and, when
applied, MAY modify the above-listed behavior.

5. Hot Root Standby

The mechanisms defined in Section 4 and Section Sections 3 and 4 can be used together as
follows.

The principle is that, for a given VRF (or possibly only for a given
(C-S, C-G):

o downstream
(C-S,C-G)):

* Downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based on
Section 4)

o 4).

* Upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and thus will thus
start forwarding traffic for a given multicast state after they
have a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
C-multicast route for that state (or both)

o a both).

* A policy controls downstream PEs from which tunnel to downstream PEs accept traffic.
For example, the policy could be based on the status of the tunnel
or tunnel monitoring tunnel-monitoring method (Section 3.1.5).

Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in Section 4 and
Section Sections 3 and 4 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 (carrying, as Route Target
extended communities, the values of the VRF Route Import Extended
Community of each VPN route from each Upstream PEs). PE). 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, 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 MVPN 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 5), 5) and which can also be the case
if the procedures of Section 3 are used and used; likewise, it can also be the
case when 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). Up).

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. Standby PE Community

IANA is requested to allocate has allocated the BGP "Standby PE" community value
(TBA1) 0xFFFF0009
from the Border "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities Communities"
registry using the First Come First Served registration policy.

7.2. BFD Discriminator

This document defines a new BGP optional transitive attribute, attribute called
"BFD Discriminator". IANA is requested to allocate a has allocated codepoint
(TBA2) 38 in the "BGP
Path Attributes" registry to the BFD Discriminator attribute.

IANA is requested to create has created a new BFD Mode sub-registry "BFD Mode" subregistry in the Border "Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) Parameters Parameters" registry. The registration policies, per
[RFC8126], for this sub-registry subregistry 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 "BFD Mode" Subregistry
Registration Policies

IANA is requested to make has made initial assignments according to Table 2.

+-----------+------------------+---------------+

+===========+==================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
+===========+==================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 1 | P2MP BFD Session | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 2- 175 | Unassigned | |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 176 - 249 | Unassigned | |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+------------------+---------------+

Table 2: BFD Mode Sub-registry "BFD Mode" Subregistry

7.3. BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type

IANA is requested to create has created a new BFD "BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type
sub-registry Type"
subregistry in Border the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). (BGP) Parameters"
registry. The registration policies, per [RFC8126], for this sub-registry
subregistry are according to Table 3.

+-----------+-------------------------+

Table 3: BFD "BFD Discriminator
Optional TLV Type Sub-registry Type" Subregistry
Registration Policies

IANA is requested to make has made initial assignments according to Table 4.

+-----------+-------------------+---------------+

+===========+===================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
+===========+===================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Source IP Address | This document |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
| 2- 175 | Unassigned | |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
| 176 - 249 | Unassigned | |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
| 250 - 254 | Experimental Use | This document |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+-------------------+---------------+

Table 4: BFD "BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type Sub-registry
Type" Subregistry

8. Security Considerations

This document describes procedures based on [RFC6513] and [RFC6514]
and hence [RFC6514];
hence, it shares the security considerations respectively represented
in these those 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 provide a
mechanism to limit the overall amount of capacity used by the BFD
traffic (as the combination of the number of active P2MP BFD sessions
and the rate of BFD Control packets to process).

The methods described in Section 3.1 may produce false-negative state
changes that can be the trigger for an unnecessary convergence in the
control plane, ultimately negatively impacting the multicast service
provided by the VPN. An operator is expected to consider the network
environment and use available controls of the mechanism used to
determine the status of a P-tunnel.

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@yahoo.com
Nehal Bhau
Cisco

Email: NBhau@cisco.com

Clayton Hassen
Bell Canada
2955 Virtual Way
Vancouver
CANADA

Email: Clayton.Hassen@bell.ca

Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium

Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

Pradeep Jain
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA

Email: pradeep.jain@nokia.com

Jayant Kotalwar
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA

Email: Jayant.Kotalwar@nokia.com

Praveen Muley
Nokia
701 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A.

Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com

Ray (Lei) Qiu
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.

Email: rqiu@juniper.net

Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.

Email: yakov@juniper.net

Kanwar Singh
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA

Email: kanwar.singh@nokia.com

11. References

11.1.

9.1. 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>.

[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.

9.2. Informative References

[I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd]

[MPLS-P2MP-BFD]
Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake, Eastlake 3rd, "BFD for
Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP",
draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-12 (work
Work in progress), November
2020. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-
bfd-14, March 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-14>.

[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

[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>.

[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

[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>.

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.

Contributors

Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:

Rahul Aggarwal
Arktan

Email: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com

Nehal Bhau
Cisco

Email: NBhau@cisco.com

Clayton Hassen
Bell Canada
2955 Virtual Way
Vancouver
Canada

Email: Clayton.Hassen@bell.ca

Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
2018 Antwerp
Belgium

Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

Pradeep Jain
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America

Email: pradeep.jain@nokia.com

Jayant Kotalwar
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America

Email: Jayant.Kotalwar@nokia.com

Praveen Muley
Nokia
701 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America

Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com

Ray (Lei) Qiu
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America

Email: rqiu@juniper.net

Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America

Email: yakov@juniper.net

Kanwar Singh
Nokia
701 E Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America

Email: kanwar.singh@nokia.com

Authors' Addresses

Thomas Morin (editor)
Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion
22307 Lannion
France

Email: thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com thomas.morin@orange.com

Robert Kebler (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave. Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
United States of America

Email: rkebler@juniper.net

Greg Mirsky (editor)
ZTE Corp.

Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com