[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-zzhang-bier-php) 00 01

BIER                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 28, 2018
Expires: June 1, 2019

                      BIER Penultimate Hop Popping


   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) can be used as provider tunnel
   for MVPN/GTM [RFC6514] [RFC7716] or EVPN BUM [RFC7432].  It is
   possible that not all routers in the provider network support BIER
   and there are various methods to handle BIER incapable transit
   routers.  However the MVPN/EVPN PEs are assumed to be BIER capable -
   they are BFIRs/BFERs.  This document specifies a method to allow BIER
   incapable routers to act as MVPN/EVPN PEs with BIER as the transport,
   by having the upstream BFR (connected directly or indirectly via a
   tunnel) of a PE remove the BIER header and send the payload to the

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.

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

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2019.

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 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.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Specifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Terminologies

   Familiarity with BIER/MVPN/EVPN protocols and procedures is assumed.
   Some terminologies are listed below for convenience.

   [To be added].

2.  Introduction

   The BIER architecture includes three layers: the "routing underlay",
   the "BIER layer", and the "multicast flow overlay".  The multicast
   flow overlay is responsible for the BFERs to signal to BFIRs that
   they are interested in receiving certain multicast flows so that
   BFIRs can encode the correct bitstring for BIER forwarding by the
   BIER layer.

   MVPN and EVPN are two similar overlays where BGP Auto-Discovery
   routes for MVPN/EVPN are exchanged among all PEs to signal which PEs
   need to receive multicast traffic for all or certain flows.

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

   Typically the same provider tunnel type is used for traffic to reach
   all receiving PEs.

   Consider an MVPN/EVPN deployment where enough P/PE routers are BIER
   capable for BIER to become the preferred the choice of provider
   tunnel.  However, some PEs cannot be upgraded to support BIER
   forwarding.  While there are ways to allow an ingress PE to send
   traffic to some PEs with one type of tunnel and send traffic to some
   other PEs with a different type of tunnel, the procedure becomes
   complicated and forwarding is not optimized.

   One way to solve this problem is to use Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
   so that the upstream BFR can pop the BIER header and send the payload
   "natively" (note that the upstream BFR can be connected directly or
   indiretly via a tunnel to the PE).  This is similar to MPLS PHP
   though it is the BIER header that is popped.  In case of MPLS
   encapsulation, even the signaling is similar - a BIER incapable
   router signals as if it supported BIER, but to request PHP at the
   penultimate hop, it signals an Implicit Null label instead of a
   regular BIER label as the Label Range Base in its BIER MPLS
   Encapsulation sub-TLV.

   The transition of an existing MVPN/EVPN deployment with traditional
   provider tunnels to using BIER with some PEs not capable of receiving
   BIER packets can be incremental.  All PEs are first upgraded to
   support BIER at least in the control plane, with those not capable of
   BIER forwarding requesting PHP.  Then BIER capable ingress PEs
   independently and incrementally switch to BIER transport.

   While the above text uses MVPN/EVPN as example, BIER PHP is
   applicable to any scenario where the multicast flow overlay edge
   router does not support BIER.

   This works well if a BIER incapable PE only needs to receive
   multicast traffic.  If it needs to send multicast traffic as well,
   then it must Ingress Replicate to a BIER capable helper PE, who will
   in turn relay the packet to other PEs.  The helper PE is either a
   Virtual Hub as specified in [RFC7024] for MVPN and [I-D.keyupate-
   bess-evpn-virtual-hub] for EVPN, or an AR-Replicator as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] for EVPN.

3.  Specifications

   The procedures in this section apply only if, by means outside the
   scope of this document, it is known that the payload after BIER
   header is MPLS packet with downstream-assigned label at top of stack
   (i.e., the Proto field in the BIER header is 1).  For example, a

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

   label from a Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) is used as specified in

   A BIER incapable router, if acting as a multicast flow overlay
   router, MUST signal its BIER information as specified in [RFC8401] or
   [I-D.ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions] or [I-D.ietf-bier-idr-
   extensions], with a PHP sub-sub-TLV included in the BIER sub-TLV
   attached to the BIER incapable router's BIER prefix to request BIER
   PHP from other BFRs.  The sub-sub-TLV's type is TBD, and the length
   is 0.

   With MPLS encapsulation, the BIER incapable multicast flow overlay
   router MAY omit the BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV, or MUST set
   the Label Range Base in BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV to
   Implicit Null Label [RFC3032].

   With MPLS encapsulation, if a BFER does not support certain BSL, it
   MAY still advertise a corresponding BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
   but set the Label Range Base to Implicit Null Label.

   If a BFR follows section 6.9 of [RFC8279] to handle BIER incapable
   routers, it must treat a router as BIER incapable if the Label Range
   Base dvertised by the router is Implicit Null, or if the router
   advertises a PHP sub-sub-TLV, so that the router is not used as a
   transit BFR.

   If the downstream neighbor for a BIER prefix is the one advertising
   the prefix with a PHP sub-sub-TLV or with an Implicit Null Label as
   the Label Range Base in its BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV, then
   when the corresponding BIRT or BIFT entry is created/updated, the
   forwarding behavior MUST be that the BIER header is removed and the
   payload be sent to the downstream router without the BIER header,
   either directly or over a tunnel.

4.  Security Considerations

   This specification does not introduce additional security concerns
   beyond those already discussed in BIER architecture and OSPF/ISIS/BGP
   exentions for BIER signaling.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests a new sub-sub-TLV type value from the "Sub-
   sub-TLVs for BIER Info Sub-TLV" registry in the "IS-IS TLV
   Codepoints" registry:

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

        Type    Name
        ----    ----
        TBD     BIER PHP Request

   This document also requests a new sub-TLV type value from the OSPFv2
   Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV registry:

        Type    Name
        ----    ----
        TBD     BIER PHP Request

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author wants to thank Eric Rosen and Antonie Przygienda for their
   review, comments and suggestions.  The author also wants to thank
   Senthil Dhanaraj for his suggestion of requesting PHP if a BFER does
   not support certain BSL.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

              Xu, X., Chen, M., Patel, K., Wijnands, I., and T.
              Przygienda, "BGP Extensions for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-
              idr-extensions-05 (work in progress), March 2018.

              Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I. Wijnands,
              "MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels", draft-
              zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01 (work in
              progress), April 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC8279]  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/RFC8279, November 2017,

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

   [RFC8296]  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/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

   [RFC8401]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z.
              Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via
              IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018,

   [RFC8444]  Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
              Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
              RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,

7.2.  Informative References

              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A.
              Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for
              EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 (work in
              progress), October 2018.

              Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Zhang, Z., and W.
              Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft-
              keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-01 (work in progress),
              October 2018.

   [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,

   [RFC7024]  Jeng, H., Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Decraene, B., Rekhter,
              Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS
              VPNs", RFC 7024, DOI 10.17487/RFC7024, October 2013,

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  bier-php                   November 2018

   [RFC7432]  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/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

Author's Address

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net

Zhang                     Expires June 1, 2019                  [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/