|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9624
Last modified on Saturday, August 31st, 2024
 Permanent link to RFC 9624
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9624
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9624
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Z. Zhang
Request for Comments: 9624 T. Przygienda
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems
J. Rabadan
Nokia
August 2024
EVPN Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast (BUM) Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)
 Abstract
This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding
Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast (BUM) traffic of Ethernet
VPNs (EVPNs) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for 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 this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9624.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
1.2. Requirements Language
2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
2.1. IP-Based Tunnel and BIER PHP
2.2. Explicit Tracking
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET Routes
2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes
2.3. MPLS Label in the PTA
3. Multihoming Split Horizon
4. Data Plane
4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission
4.1.1. At a BFIR That Is an Ingress PE
4.1.2. At a BFIR That Is a P-Tunnel Segmentation Point
4.2. Disposition
4.2.1. At a BFER That Is an Egress PE
4.2.2. At a BFER That Is a P-Tunnel Segmentation Point
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC 7432] and [RFC 8365] specify the protocols and procedures for
Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs). For Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast
(BUM) traffic, provider/underlay tunnels are used to carry the BUM
traffic. Several kinds of tunnel technologies can be used as
specified in [RFC 7432] and [RFC 8365], and this document specifies the
protocols and procedures to use Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
[RFC 8279] as provider tunnels for EVPN BUM traffic.
BIER is an architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding
through a "multicast domain" without requiring intermediate routers
to maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-
building protocol.
The EVPN BUM procedures specified in [RFC 7432] and extended in
[RFC 9572], [RFC 9251], and [CMCAST-ENHANCEMENTS] are much aligned with
Multicast VPN (MVPN) procedures [RFC 6514], and an EVPN Broadcast
Domain (BD) corresponds to a VPN in MVPN. As such, this document is
also very much aligned with [RFC 8556], which specifies MVPN with
BIER. For terseness, some background, terms, and concepts are not
repeated here. Additionally, some text is borrowed verbatim from
[RFC 8556].
1.1. Terminology
ES: Ethernet Segment
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier
BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router
BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router
BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router
BFR-Prefix: An IP address that uniquely identifies a BFR and is
routable in a BIER domain.
C-S: A multicast source address identifying a multicast source
located at an EVPN customer site. "C-" stands for "Customer-".
C-G: A multicast group address used by an EVPN customer.
C-flow: A customer multicast flow. Each C-flow is identified by the
ordered pair (source address, group address), where each address
is in the customer's address space. The identifier of a
particular C-flow is usually written as (C-S, C-G). Sets of
C-flows can be denoted by the use of the "C-*" wildcard (see
[RFC 6625]), e.g., (C-*, C-G).
P-tunnel: A multicast tunnel through the network of one or more
service providers used to transport C-flows. "P-" stands for
"Provider-".
IMET A-D Route: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery
route. Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to
advertise the "default" P-tunnel for a particular BD.
SMET A-D Route: Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag Auto-Discovery
route. Carried in BGP Update messages, these routes are used to
advertise the C-flows that the advertising Provider Edge (PE) is
interested in.
PMSI: Provider Multicast Service Interface [RFC 6513]. A conceptual
interface used by a PE to send customer multicast traffic to all
or some PEs in the same VPN.
I-PMSI: Inclusive PMSI. For all PEs in the same VPN.
S-PMSI: Selective PMSI. For some of the PEs in the same VPN.
I-PMSI A-D Route: Inclusive PMSI Auto-Discovery route used to
advertise the tunnels that instantiate an I-PMSI.
S-PMSI A-D Route: Selective PMSI Auto-Discovery route used to
advertise that particular C-flows are bound to (i.e., are
traveling through) particular P-tunnels.
PTA: PMSI Tunnel Attribute. A BGP attribute used to identify a
particular P-tunnel.
VXLAN: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network [RFC 7348]
NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation
[RFC 7637]
GENEVE: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation [RFC 8926]
VNI: VXLAN Network Identifier
VSID: Virtual Subnet Identifier
RSVP-TE P2MP: Resource Reservation Protocol for Point-to-Multipoint
TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC 4875]
mLDP P2MP: Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol extensions for
Point-to-Multipoint LSPs [RFC 6388]
1.2. 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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
[RFC 7432] specifies that Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
routes carry a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) to identify the particular
P-tunnel to which one or more BUM flows are being assigned, which is
the same as specified in [RFC 6514] for MVPN. [RFC 8556] specifies the
encoding of the PTA for the use of BIER with MVPN. Much of that
specification is reused for the use of BIER with EVPN, and much of
the text below is borrowed verbatim from [RFC 8556].
The PTA contains the following fields:
* Tunnel Type. The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for
BIER for MVPN [RFC 8556] is used for EVPN as well.
* Tunnel Identifier. This field contains three subfields for BIER.
The text below is exactly as in [RFC 8556].
1. The first subfield is a single octet, containing a BIER sub-
domain-id (see [RFC 8279]). This indicates that packets sent
on the PMSI will be sent on the specified BIER sub-domain.
How that sub-domain is chosen is outside the scope of this
document.
2. The second subfield is a two-octet field containing the BFR-id
in the sub-domain identified in the first subfield of the
router that is constructing the PTA.
3. The third subfield is the BFR-Prefix (see [RFC 8279]) of the
router (a BFIR) that is constructing the PTA. The BFR-Prefix
will either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address.
Whether the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the
total length of the PTA.
The BFR-Prefix need not be the same IP address that is carried
in any other field of the x-PMSI A-D route, even if the BFIR
is the originating router of the x-PMSI A-D route.
* MPLS Label. For EVPN-MPLS [RFC 7432], this field contains an
upstream-assigned MPLS label. It is assigned by the BFIR.
Constraints on how the originating router selects this label are
discussed in Section 2.3. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE [RFC 8365]
[RFC 7348] [RFC 7637] [RFC 8926], this field is a 24-bit VNI/VSID of
global significance.
* Flags. When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the PTA
Flags field are meaningful. Details about the use of these flags
can be found in Section 2.2.
- Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF) [RFC 8534]
- Leaf Info Required (LIR)
Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI
A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be
distributed beyond the boundaries of a BIER domain. That is, any
routers that receive the route must be in the same BIER domain as the
originator of the route. If the originator is in more than one BIER
domain, the route must be distributed only within the BIER domain in
which the BFR-Prefix in the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.
As with all MVPN routes, the distribution of these routes is
controlled by the provisioning of Route Targets.
2.1. IP-Based Tunnel and BIER PHP
When VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE is used for EVPN, by default, the outer IP
header (and UDP header in the case of VXLAN/GENEVE) is not included
in the BIER payload, except when it is known a priori that BIER
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) [BIER-PHP] is used in the BIER domain
and the encapsulation (after the BIER header is popped) between the
BIER Penultimate Hop and the egress PE does not have a way to
indicate the next header is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In that case, the
full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation MUST be used. In the outer IP
header, a well-known IP multicast address (224.0.0.122 in the case of
IPv4 or FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:14 in the case of IPv6) is used as the
destination address, and the egress PEs MUST be set up to receive and
process packets addressed to the destination address. The address is
used for all BDs, and the inner VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be
used to identify BDs.
2.2. Explicit Tracking
When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER
domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see [RFC 8279]). The BFIR
must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
delivered. This can be done in either of two ways as described in
the following two sections.
2.2.1. Using IMET/SMET Routes
Both IMET and SMET routes provide explicit tracking functionality.
For an inclusive PMSI, the set of BFERs (egress PEs) includes the
originators of all IMET routes for a BD. For a selective PMSI, the
set of BFERs (egress PEs) includes the originators of corresponding
SMET routes.
The SMET routes do not carry a PTA. When an ingress PE sends traffic
on a selective tunnel using BIER, it uses the upstream-assigned label
that is advertised in its IMET route.
When only selective forwarding is used for all flows and without
tunnel segmentation, SMET routes are used without the need for S-PMSI
A-D routes. Otherwise, the procedures in the following section
apply.
2.2.2. Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes
There are two cases where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are used as
discussed in the following two sections.
2.2.2.1. Selective Forwarding Only for Some Flows
With the SMET procedure, a PE advertises a SMET route for each (C-S,
C-G) or (C-*, C-G) state that it learns on its Attachment Circuits
(ACs), and each SMET route is tracked by every PE in the same BD. It
may be desired that SMET routes are not used in order to reduce the
burden of explicit tracking.
In this case, most multicast traffic will follow the I-PMSI
(advertised via the IMET route) and only some flows will follow
S-PMSIs. To achieve that, S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes can be used, as
specified in [RFC 9572].
The rules specified in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of [RFC 8556] apply.
2.2.2.2. Tunnel Segmentation
Another case where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are necessary is tunnel
segmentation, which is also specified in [RFC 9572] and further
clarified in [CMCAST-ENHANCEMENTS] for segmentation with SMET routes.
This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS.
The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 of [RFC 8556] apply.
Section 2.2.2 of [RFC 8556] does not apply, because like in MVPN, the
LIR-pF flag cannot be used with segmentation.
2.2.2.3. Applicability of Additional MVPN Specifications
As with the MVPN case, "Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute in Leaf A-D
Routes" (Section 3 of [RFC 8556]) applies.
Notice that [RFC 8556] refers to procedures specified in [RFC 6625] and
[RFC 8534]. Those two documents were specified for MVPN but apply to
IP multicast payload in EVPN as well.
2.3. MPLS Label in the PTA
Rules in Section 2.1 of [RFC 8556] apply, EXCEPT the following three
bullets (they do NOT apply to EVPN) in that section:
* If the two routes do not have the same Address Family Identifier
(AFI) value, then their respective PTAs MUST contain different
MPLS label values. This ensures that when an egress PE receives a
data packet with the given label, the egress PE can infer from the
label whether the payload is an IPv4 packet or an IPv6 packet.
* If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting MVPN extranet [RFC 7900]
functionality, and if the two routes originate from different VRFs
on this ingress PE, then the respective PTAs of the two routes
MUST contain different MPLS label values.
* If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting the "Extranet Separation"
feature of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [RFC 7900]), and if
one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
community but the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.
3. Multihoming Split Horizon
For EVPN-MPLS, [RFC 7432] specifies the use of ESI labels to identify
the ES from which a BUM packet originates. A PE receiving that
packet from the core side will not forward it to the same ES. The
procedure works for both Ingress Replication (IR) and RSVP-TE/mLDP
P2MP tunnels, using downstream- and upstream-assigned ESI labels,
respectively. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, [RFC 8365] specifies local
bias procedures, where a PE receiving a BUM packet from the core side
knows the ingress PE due to encapsulation; therefore, the PE does not
forward the packet to any multihoming ESes that the ingress PE is on.
This is because the ingress PE already forwarded the packet to those
ESes, regardless of whether the ingress PE is a Designated Forwarder
for those ESes.
With BIER, the local bias procedure still applies for EVPN-
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, as the BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the
ingress PE. For EVPN-MPLS, ESI label procedures also still apply,
though two upstream-assigned labels will be used (one for identifying
the BD and one for identifying the ES) -- the same as in the case of
using a single P2MP tunnel for multiple BDs. The BFIR-id in the BIER
header identifies the ingress PE that assigned those two labels.
4. Data Plane
Like MVPN, the EVPN application plays the role of the "multicast flow
overlay" as described in [RFC 8279].
4.1. Encapsulation and Transmission
A BFIR could be either an ingress PE or a P-tunnel segmentation
point. The procedures are slightly different as described below.
4.1.1. At a BFIR That Is an Ingress PE
To transmit a BUM data packet, an ingress PE first determines the
route matched for transmission and routes for tracking leaves
according to the following rules.
1. If selective forwarding is not used or is not an IP multicast
packet after the Ethernet header, the IMET route originated for
the BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmission.
Leaf-tracking routes are all other received IMET routes for the
BD.
2. Otherwise, if selective forwarding is used for all IP multicast
traffic based on SMET routes, the IMET route originated for the
BD by the ingress PE is the route matched for transmission.
Received SMET routes for the BD, whose source and destination
address fields match the packet's source and destination IP
address, are leaf-tracking routes.
3. Otherwise, the route matched for transmission is the S-PMSI A-D
route originated by the ingress PE for the BD, whose source and
destination address fields match the packet's source and
destination IP address and have a PTA specifying a valid tunnel
type that is not "no tunnel info". Leaf-tracking routes are
determined as follows:
a. If the match for the transmission route carries a PTA that
has the LIR flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag set,
the routes matched for tracking are Leaf A-D routes whose
Route Key field is identical to the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
route.
b. If the match for the transmission route carries a PTA that
has the LIR-pF flag, the leaf-tracking routes are Leaf A-D
routes whose Route Key field is derived from the NLRI of the
S-PMSI A-D route according to the procedures described in
Section 5.2 of [RFC 8534].
Note that in both cases, SMET routes may be used in lieu of Leaf
A-D routes, as a PE may omit the Leaf A-D route in response to an
S-PMSI A-D route with the LIR or LIR-pF bit set if a SMET route
with the corresponding Tag, Source, and Group fields is already
originated [RFC 9572]. In particular, in the second case above,
even though the SMET route does not have a PTA attached, it is
still considered a Leaf A-D route in response to a wildcard
S-PMSI A-D route with the LIR-pF bit set.
4. Otherwise, the route matched for transmission and leaf-tracking
routes are determined as in rule 1.
If no route is matched for transmission, the packet is not forwarded
onto a P-tunnel. If the tunnel that the ingress determines to use
based on the route matched for transmission (and considering
interworking with PEs that do not support certain tunnel types per
procedures in [RFC 9251]) requires leaf tracking (e.g., Ingress
Replication, RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel, or BIER) but there are no leaf-
tracking routes, the packet will not be forwarded onto a P-tunnel
either.
The following text assumes that BIER is the determined tunnel type.
The ingress PE pushes an upstream-assigned ESI label per [RFC 7432] if
the following conditions are all met:
* The packet is received on a multihomed ES.
* It is EVPN-MPLS.
* The ESI label procedure is used for split horizon.
The MPLS label from the PTA of the route matched for transmission is
then pushed onto the packet's label stack for EVPN-MPLS. For EVPN-
VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, a VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is prepended to the
packet with the VNI/VSID set to the value in the PTA's Label field,
and then an IP/UDP header is prepended if needed (e.g., for PHP
purposes).
Then, the packet is encapsulated in a BIER header and forwarded
according to the procedures of [RFC 8279] and [RFC 8296].
Specifically, see "Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation"
(Section 3 of [RFC 8296]). The Proto field in the BIER header is set
to 2 in the case of EVPN-MPLS, 7/8/9 in the case of EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/
GENEVE (Section 5) when an IP header is not used, or 4/6 if an IP
header is used for EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE.
To create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the BFIR must
know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet. This is
determined from the set of leaf-tracking routes.
4.1.2. At a BFIR That Is a P-Tunnel Segmentation Point
In this case, the encapsulation for the upstream segment of the
P-tunnel includes (among other things) a label that identifies the
x-PMSI or IMET A-D route that is the match for reception on the
upstream segment. The segmentation point re-advertised the route
into one or more downstream regions. Each instance of the re-
advertised route for a downstream region has a PTA that specifies the
tunnel for that region. For any particular downstream region, the
route matched for transmission is the re-advertised route, and the
leaf-tracking routes are determined as follows, if needed, for the
tunnel type:
* If the route matched for transmission is an x-PMSI route, it must
have the LIR flag set in its PTA, and the leaf-tracking routes are
all the matching Leaf A-D and SMET routes received in the
downstream region.
* If the route matched for transmission is an IMET route, the leaf-
tracking routes are all the IMET routes for the same BD received
in the downstream region.
If the downstream region uses BIER, the packet is forwarded as
follows: the upstream segmentation's encapsulation is removed and the
above-mentioned label is swapped to the upstream-assigned label in
the PTA of the route matched for transmission, and then a BIER header
is imposed as in Section 4.1.1.
4.2. Disposition
The same procedures in Section 4.2 of [RFC 8556] are followed for
EVPN-MPLS, except for some EVPN specifics that are discussed in the
following two subsections of this document.
For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, the only differences are that the
payload is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (with or without an IP header) and the
VNI/VSID field in the VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is used to determine
the corresponding BD.
4.2.1. At a BFER That Is an Egress PE
Once the corresponding BD is determined from the upstream-assigned
label or VNI/VSID, EVPN forwarding procedures per [RFC 7432] or
[RFC 8365] are followed. In the case of EVPN-MPLS, if there is an
inner label in the label stack following the BIER header, that inner
label is considered the upstream-assigned ESI label for split-horizon
purposes.
4.2.2. At a BFER That Is a P-Tunnel Segmentation Point
This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS. The same procedures in
Section 4.2.2 of [RFC 8556] are followed, subject to multihoming
procedures specified in [RFC 9572].
5. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA has registered the following three values in
the "BIER Next Protocol Identifiers" registry:
+=======+================================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+================================+===========+
| 7 | Payload is VXLAN encapsulated | RFC 9624 |
| | (no IP/UDP header) | |
+-------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 8 | Payload is NVGRE encapsulated | RFC 9624 |
| | (no IP header) | |
+-------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | Payload is GENEVE encapsulated | RFC 9624 |
| | (no IP/UDP header) | |
+-------+--------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: BIER Next Protocol Identifiers Registry
IANA has also assigned an IPv4 and an IPv6 multicast address for the
case discussed in Section 2.1.
The following entry has been added to the "Local Network Control
Block (224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24))" registry for IPv4:
Address(es): 224.0.0.122
Description: Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) BUM Traffic
Reference: RFC 9624
The following entry has been added to the "Link-Local Scope Multicast
Addresses" registry for IPv6:
Address(es): FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:14
Description: Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) BUM Traffic
Reference: RFC 9624
6. Security Considerations
This document is about using BIER as provider tunnels for EVPN. It
is very similar to using BIER as MVPN provider tunnels and does not
introduce additional security implications beyond what have been
discussed in the EVPN base protocol specification [RFC 7432] and MVPN
using BIER [RFC 8556].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6513>.
[RFC 6514] 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/RFC 6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6514>.
[RFC 6625] Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6625, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6625>.
[RFC 7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7432>.
[RFC 7900] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Cai, Y.,
and T. Morin, "Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs",
RFC 7900, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7900, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7900>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8279>.
[RFC 8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8296>.
[RFC 8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8365>.
[RFC 8534] Dolganow, A., Kotalwar, J., Rosen, E., Ed., and Z. Zhang,
"Explicit Tracking with Wildcard Routes in Multicast VPN",
RFC 8534, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8534, February 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8534>.
[RFC 8556] Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S.,
and A. Dolganow, "Multicast VPN Using Bit Index Explicit
Replication (BIER)", RFC 8556, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8556, April
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8556>.
[RFC 8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8926>.
[RFC 9251] Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Mishra, M., Patel, K., Drake, J.,
and W. Lin, "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) and
Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Proxies for Ethernet
VPN (EVPN)", RFC 9251, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9251, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9251>.
[RFC 9572] Zhang, Z., Lin, W., Rabadan, J., Patel, K., and A.
Sajassi, "Updates to EVPN Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or
Multicast (BUM) Procedures", RFC 9572,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9572, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9572>.
7.2. Informative References
[BIER-PHP] Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-php-11, 6
February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-bier-php-11>.
[CMCAST-ENHANCEMENTS]
Zhang, Z., Kebler, R., Lin, W., and E. Rosen, "MVPN/EVPN
C-Multicast Routes Enhancements", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-
enhancements-04, 17 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zzhang-bess-
mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements-04>.
[RFC 4875] 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/RFC 4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4875>.
[RFC 6388] 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/RFC 6388, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6388>.
[RFC 7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7348>.
[RFC 7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7637, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7637>.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions.
Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from [RFC 8556].
Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks
Email: prz@juniper.net
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 32193 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, August 31st, 2024
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
