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

Versions: (draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding) 00 01 02 03 RFC 7438

MPLS Working Group                                     IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  E. Rosen
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: September 4, 2014                                      A. Gulko
                                                         Thomson Reuters
                                                               U. Joorde
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           March 3, 2014


                 mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards
           draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-00

Abstract

   There are scenarios in which an IP multicast tree traverses an MPLS
   domain.  In these scenarios, it can be desirable to convert the IP
   multicast tree "seamlessly" to an MPLS multipoint label switched path
   (MP-LSP) when it enters the MPLS domain, and then to convert it back
   to an IP multicast tree when it exists the MPLS domain.  Previous
   documents specify procedures that allow certain kinds of IP multicast
   trees (either "Source-Specific Multicast" trees or "Bidirectional
   multicast" trees) to be attached to an MPLS multipoint label switched
   path (MP-LSP), either in the context of a particular VPN or in a
   "global" (non-VPN) context.  However, the previous documents do not
   specify procedures for attaching IP "Any Source Multicast" trees to
   MP-LSPs, nor do they specify procedures "aggregating" multiple IP
   multicast trees onto a single MP-LSP.  This document specifies the
   procedures to support these functions.  It does so by defining
   "wildcard" encodings making it possible to specify, when setting up
   an MP-LSP, that a set of IP multicast trees or a shared IP multicast
   tree should be attached to that MP-LSP.

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 http://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



Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (http://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.

































Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology and Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Wildcards in mLDP Opaque Value TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Some Wildcard Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  PIM shared tree forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  IGMP/MLD proxying  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Selective Source mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Procedures for Wildcard Source Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Procedures for Wildcard Group Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Determining the MP-LSP Root (Ingress LSR)  . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Anycast RP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13































Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


1.  Introduction

   [RFC6826] and [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling] specify
   procedures for mLDP (Multiple Extensions to the Label Distribution
   Protocol) that allow an IP multicast tree (either a "Source-Specific
   Multicast" tree or a "Bidirectional multicast" tree) to be attached
   "seamlessly" to an MPLS multipoint label switched path (MP-LSP).
   This can be useful, for example, when there is multicast data that
   originates in a domain that supports IP multicast, then has to be
   forwarded across a domain that supports MPLS multicast, then has to
   forwarded across another domain that supports IP multicast.  By
   attaching an IP multicast tree to an MP-LSP, data that is traveling
   along the IP multicast tree is moved to the MP-LSP.  The data then
   travels along the MP-LSP through the MPLS domain.  When the reaches
   the boundary of the MPLS domain, it can be seamlessly passed along an
   IP multicast tree.  This can be useful in either VPN context or
   global context.

   When following the procedures of those documents, a given MP-LSP can
   carry data from only a single IP source-specific multicast tree
   (i.e., a single "(S,G) tree").  However, there are scenarios in which
   it would be desirable to "aggregate" a number of (S,G) trees on a
   single MP-LSP.  Aggregation allows a given number of IP multicast
   trees to using a smaller number of MP-LSPs, thus saving state in the
   network.

   In addition, the previous documents do not support the attachment of
   an "Any Source Multicast" (ASM) shared tree to an MP-LSP (except in
   the case where the ASM shared tree is a "bidirectional" tree (i.e., a
   tree set up by BIDIR-PIM [RFC5015].  However, there are scenarios in
   which it would be desirable to attach a non-bidirectional ASM shared
   tree to an MP-LSP.

   In mLDP, every MP-LSP is identified by the combination of a "root
   node" (or "Ingress LSR") and an "Opaque Value" that uniquely
   identifies the MP-LSP in the context of the root node.  When mLDP in-
   band signaling is used (for non-bidirectional trees), the Opaque
   Value has an IP Source Address (S) and an IP Group Address (G)
   encoded into it, thus enabling it to identify a particular IP
   multicast (S,G) tree.

   This document specifies a way to encode an mLDP "Opaque Value" that
   replaces either the "S" or the "G" or both by a "wildcard".
   Procedures are described for using the wildcard encoding to map non-
   bidirectional ASM shared trees to MP-LSPs, and for mapping multiple
   (S,G) trees (with a common value of S or a common value of G) to a
   single MP-LSP.




Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   Some example scenarios where wildcard encoding is useful are:

   o  PIM Shared tree forwarding with threshold infinity.

   o  IGMP/MLD proxying.

   o  Selective Source mapping.

   These scenarios are discussed in Section 4.  Note that this list of
   scenarios is not meant to be exhaustive.

   This draft specifies only the mLDP procedures that are specific to
   the use of wildcards. mLDP in-band signaling procedures that are not
   specific to the use of wildcards can be found in [RFC6826] and
   [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling].  Unless otherwise
   specified in this document, those procedures still apply when
   wildcards are used.


2.  Terminology and Definitions

   Readers of this document are assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology and concepts of the documents listed as Normative
   References.  For convenience, some of the more frequently used terms
   appear below.

   IGMP:
      Internet Group Management Protocol.

   In-band signaling:
      Using the opaque value of a mLDP FEC element to carry the (S,G) or
      (*,G) identifying a particular IP multicast tree.

   Ingress LSR:
      Root node of a MP-LSP.  When in-band signaling is used, the
      Ingress LSR receives mLDP messages about a particular MP-LSP from
      "downstream", and emits IP multicast control messages "upstream".
      The set of IP multicast control messages that are emitted upstream
      depends upon the contents of the LDP Opaque Value TLVs.  The
      Ingress LSR also receives IP multicast data messages from
      "upstream" and sends them "downstream" as MPLS packets on a MP-
      LSP.

   IP multicast tree:
      An IP multicast distribution tree identified by a IP multicast
      group address and optionally a Source IP address, also referred to
      as (S,G) and (*,G).




Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   MLD:
      Multicast Listener Discovery.

   mLDP:
      Multipoint LDP.

   MP-LSP:
      A P2MP or MP2MP LSP.

   PIM:
      Protocol Independent Multicast.

   PIM-ASM:
      PIM Any Source Multicast.

   PIM-SM:
      PIM Sparse Mode

   PIM-SSM:
      PIM Source Specific Multicast.

   RP:
      The PIM Rendezvous Point.

   Egress LSR:
      The Egress LSRs of an MP-LSP are LSPs that receive MPLS multicast
      data packets from "upstream" on that MP-LSP, and that forward that
      data "downstream" as IP multicast data packets.  The Egress LSRs
      also receive IP multicast control messages from "downstream", and
      send mLDP control messages "upstream".  When in-band signaling is
      used, the Egress LSRs construct Opaque Value TLVs that contain IP
      source and/or group addresses, based on the contents of the IP
      multicast control messages received from downstream.

   Threshold Infinity:
      A PIM-SM procedure where no source specific multicast (S,G) trees
      are created for multicast packets that are forwarded down the
      shared tree (*,G).

   TLV:
      A protocol element consisting of a type field, followed by a
      length field, followed by a value field.  Note that the value
      field of a TLV may be sub-divided into a number of sub-fields.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].




Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


3.  Wildcards in mLDP Opaque Value TLVs

   [RFC6826] and [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling] define the
   following TLVs: Transit IPv4 Source TLV, Transit IPv6 Source TLV,
   Transit VPNv4 Source TLV, and Transit VPNv6 Source TLV.  The value
   fields of each such TLV is divided into a number of sub-fields, one
   of which contains an IP source address, and one of which contains an
   IP group address.  Per those documents, these fields must contain
   valid IP addresses.

   This document extends the definition of those TLVs by allowing either
   the IP Source Address field or the IP Group Address field (or both)
   to specify a "wildcard" rather than a valid IP address.

   A value of all zeroes in the IP Source Address sub-field is used to
   represent a wildcard source address.  A value of all zeroes in the IP
   Group Address sub-field is used to represent the wildcard group
   address.  Note that the lengths of these sub-fields is as specified
   in the previous documents.

   If the IP Source Address sub-field contains the wildcard, and the IP
   Group Address sub-field contains an IP multicast group address, say
   G, that is NOT in the SSM address range (see Section 4.8 of
   [RFC4601]), the TLV identifies a PIM-SM shared tree.

   If the IP Source Address sub-field contains the wildcard, and the IP
   Group Address sub-field contains an IP multicast group address, say
   G, that is in the SSM address range, the TLV identifies the
   collection of PIM-SSM trees with the given group address.

   If the IP Source Address sub-field contains a non-zero IP address,
   and the IP Group Address sub-field contains the wildcard, the TLV
   identifies the collection of PIM-SSM trees that have the source
   address as their root.

   Procedures for the use of the wildcards are discussed in Sections 4,
   5 and 6.  Please note that, as always, the structure of the Opaque
   Value TLVs does not actually affect the operation of mLDP, but only
   affects the interface between mLDP and IP multicast.

   At the present time, there are no procedures defined for the use of a
   wildcard group in the following TLVs that are defined in [RFC6826] or
   [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling]: Transit IPv4 Bidir TLV,
   Transit IPv6 Bidir TLV, Transit VPNv4 Bidir TLV, Transit VPNv6 Bidir
   TLV.  Such procedures may be added in a later revision of this
   document.  Note that the Bidir TLVs do not have a "Source Address"
   sub-field, and hence the notion of a wildcard source is not
   applicable to them.



Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   At the present time, there are no procedures defined for the use of
   both a wildcard source and a wildcard group in the same TLV.  Such
   procedures may be added in a later revision of this document.


4.  Some Wildcard Use Cases

   This section discusses a number of wildcard use cases.  The set of
   use cases here is not meant to be exhaustive.  In each of these use
   cases, the Egress LSRs construct mLDP Opaque Value TLVs that contain
   wildcards in the IP Source Address or IP Group Address sub-fields.

4.1.  PIM shared tree forwarding

   PIM [RFC4601] has the concept of a "shared tree", identified as
   (*,G).  This concept is only applicable when G is an IP Multicast
   Group address that is not in the SSM address range (i.e., is an ASM
   group address).  Every ASM group is associated with a Rendezvous
   Point (RP), and the (*,G) tree is built towards the RP (i.e., its
   root is the RP).  The RP for group G is responsible for forwarding
   packets down the (*,G) tree.  The packets forwarded down the (*,G)
   tree may be from any multicast source, as long as they have an IP
   destination address of G.

   The RP learns about all the multicast sources for a given group, and
   then joins a source-specific tree for each such source.  I.e., when
   the RP for G learns that S has multicast data to send to G, the RP
   joins the (S,G) tree.  When the RP receives multicast data from S
   that is destined to G, the RP forwards the data down the (*,G) tree.
   There are several different ways that the RP may learn about the
   sources for a given group.  The RP may learn of sources via PIM
   Register messages [RFC4601], via MSDP [RFC3618] or by observing
   packets from a source that is directly connected to the RP.

   In PIM, a PIM router that has receivers for a particular ASM
   multicast group G (known as a "last hop" router for G) will first
   join the (*,G) tree.  As it receives multicast traffic on the (*,G)
   tree, it learns (by examining the IP headers of the multicast data
   packets) the sources that are transmitting to G. Typically, when a
   last hop router for group G learns that source S is transmitting to
   G, the last hop router joins the (S,G) tree, and "prunes" S off the
   (*,G) tree.  This allows each last hop router to receive the
   multicast data along the shortest path from the source to the last
   hop router.  (Full details of this behavior can be found in
   [RFC4601].)

   In some cases, however, a last hop router for group G may decide not
   to join the source trees, but rather to keep receiving all the



Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   traffic for G from the (*,G) tree.  In this case, we say that the
   last hop router has "threshold infinity" for group G. This is
   optional behaviour documented in [RFC4601].  "Threshold infinity" is
   often used in deployments where the RP is between the multicast
   sources and the multicast receivers for group G, i.e., in deployments
   where it is known that the shortest path from any source to any
   receiver of the group goes through the RP.  In these deployments,
   there is no advantage for a last hop router to join a source tree,
   since the data is already traveling along the shortest path.  The
   only effect of executing the complicated procedures for joining a
   source tree and pruning the source off the shared tree would be to
   increase the amount of multicast routing state that has to be
   maintained in the network.

   To efficiently use mLDP in-band signaling in this scenario, it is
   necessary for the Egress LSRs to construct an Opaque Value TLV that
   identifies a (*,G) tree.  This is done by using the wildcard in the
   IP Source Address sub-field, and setting the IP Group Address sub-
   field to G.

   Note that these mLDP in-band signaling procedures do not support PIM-
   ASM in scenarios where "threshold infinity" is not used.

4.2.  IGMP/MLD proxying

   There are scenarios where the multicast senders and receivers are
   directly connected to an MPLS routing domain, and where it is desired
   to use mLDP rather than PIM to set up "trees" through that domain.

   In these scenarios we can apply "IGMP/MLD proxying" and eliminate the
   use of PIM.  The senders and receivers consider the MPLS domain to be
   single hop between each other.  [RFC4605] documents procedures where
   a multicast routing protocol is not nessesary to build a 'simple
   tree'.  Within the MPLS domain, mLDP will be used to build a MP-LSP,
   but this is hidden from the senders and receivers.  The procedures
   defined in [RFC4605] are applicable, since the senders and receivers
   are considered to be one hop away from each other.

   For mLDP to build the necessary MP-LSP, it needs to know the root of
   the tree.  Following the procedures as defined in [RFC4605] we use
   the "proxy-device" as the mLDP root for the ASM multicast group.
   Since the MP-LSP for a given ASM multicast group will carry traffic
   from all the sources for that group, the Opaque Value TLV used to
   construct the MP-LSP will contain a wildcard in the IP Source Address
   sub-field.






Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


4.3.  Selective Source mapping

   In many IPTV deployments, the content servers are gathered into a
   small number of sites.  Popular channels are often statically
   configured, and forwarded over a core MPLS network to the egress
   routers.  Since these channels are statically defined, they MAY also
   be forwarded over a multipoint LSP with wildcard encoding.  The sort
   of wildcard encoding that needs to be used (Source and/or Group)
   depends on the Source/Group allocation policy of the IPTV provider.
   Other options are to use MSDP [RFC3618] or BGP "Auto-Discovery"
   procedures [RFC6513] for source discovery by the Ingress LSR.  Based
   on the received wildcard, the Ingress LSR can select from the set of
   IP multicast streams for which it has state.


5.  Procedures for Wildcard Source Usage

   The IP multicast component on an Egress LSR determines when a
   wildcard is to be used in the IP Source Address sub-field of an mLDP
   Opaque Value TLV.  How the IP multicast component determines this is
   a local matter, and may need to be explicitly configured.  It MAY
   however use the following rules (with or without explicit
   configuration);

   1.  Suppose that PIM is enabled, and an Egress LSR needs to join a
       non-bidirectional ASM group G, and the RP for G is reachable via
       a BGP route.  The Egress LSR MAY choose the BGP Next Hop of the
       route to the RP to be the Ingress LSR (root node) of the MP-LSP
       corresponding to the (*,G) tree.  (See also Section 7.)  The
       Egress LSR MAY identify the (*,G) tree by using an mLDP Opaque
       Value TLV whose IP Source Address sub-field contains a wildcard,
       and whose IP Group Address sub-field contains G.

   2.  If PIM is not enabled for group G, and an IGMP/MLD group
       membership report for G has been received, the Egress LSR may
       determine the "proxy device" for G (following the procedures
       defined in [RFC4605]).  It can then set up an MP-LSP using the
       proxy device as the Ingress LSR.  The Egress LSR then needs to
       signal the Ingress LSR that the MP-LSP is to carry traffic
       belonging to group G. It does this by using an Opaque Value TLV
       whose IP Source Address sub-field contains a wildcard, and whose
       IP Group Address sub-field contains G.

   When the Ingress LSR receives an mLDP Opaque Value TLV that has been
   defined for in-band signaling, the information from the sub-fields of
   that TLV is passed to the IP multicast component of the Ingress LSR.
   If the IP Source Address sub-field contains a wildcard, the IP
   multicast component must determine how to process it.  How the



Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   wildcard is processed is a local matter, subject to the rules below:

   1.  If PIM is enabled and the group identified in the Opaque Value
       TLV is a non-bidirectional ASM group, the Ingress LSR acts as if
       it had received a (*,G) IGMP/MLD report from a downstream node,
       and the procedures defined in [RFC4601] are followed.

   2.  If PIM is enabled and the identified group is a PIM-SSM group,
       all multicast sources known for the group on the Ingress LSR are
       to be forwarded down the MP-LSP.

   3.  If PIM is not enabled for identified group, the Ingress LSR acts
       as if it had received a (*,G) IGMP/MLD report from a downstream
       node, and the procedures as defined in [RFC4605] are followed.


6.  Procedures for Wildcard Group Usage

   The IP multicast component on an Egress LSR determines when a
   wildcard is to be used in the IP Group Address sub-field of an mLDP
   Opaque Value TLV.  How the IP multicast component determines this is
   a local matter, and may need to be explicitly configured.

   When the Ingress LSR (i.e., the root node of the MP-LSP) receives an
   mLDP Opaque Value TLV that has been defined for in-band signaling,
   the information from the sub-fields of that TLV is passed to the IP
   multicast component of the Ingress LSR.  If the IP Group Address sub-
   field contains a wildcard, the Ingress LSR examines its IP multicast
   routing table, to find all the IP multicast streams whose IP source
   address is the address specified in the IP Source Address sub-field
   of the TLV.  All these streams SHOULD be forwarded down the MP-LSP
   identified by the Opaque Value TLV.  Note that some of these streams
   may have SSM group addresses, while some may have ASM group
   addresses.


7.  Determining the MP-LSP Root (Ingress LSR)

   Documents [RFC6826] and [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling]
   describe procedures by which an Egress LSR may determine the MP-LSP
   root node address corresponding to a given IP multicast stream, based
   upon the IP address of the source of the IP multicast stream.  When a
   wildcard source encoding is used, PIM is enabled, and the group is a
   non-bidirectional ASM group, a similar procedure is applied.  The
   only difference from the above mentioned procedures is that the Proxy
   device or RP address is used instead of the Source to discover the
   mLDP root node address.




Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   In all other cases some sort of manual configuration is applied in
   order to find the root node.  Note, finding the root node is a local
   implementation matter and not limited to the solutions mentioned in
   this document.


8.  Anycast RP

   In the scenarios where in-band signaling is used, it is unlikely that
   the RP-to-Group mappings are being dynamically distributed over the
   MPLS core.  It is more likely that the RP address is statically
   configured at each multicast site.  In these scenarios, it is
   advisable to configure an Anycast RP Address at each site, in order
   to provide redundancy.  See [RFC3446] for more details.


9.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Loa Andersson for his review and comments.


10.  IANA Considerations

   There are no new allocations required from IANA.


11.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations other then ones already
   mentioned in [RFC6826] and
   [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling].


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling]
              Wijnands, I., Hitchen, P., Leymann, N., Henderickx, W.,
              arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com, a., and J. Tantsura,
              "Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol In-Band Signaling
              in a VRF Context",
              draft-ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling-03 (work in
              progress), January 2014.

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




Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [RFC4605]  Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
              "Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
              ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, August 2006.

   [RFC6826]  Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala,
              "Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint
              and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",
              RFC 6826, January 2013.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3446]  Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
              Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
              Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
              (MSDP)", RFC 3446, January 2003.

   [RFC3618]  Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery
              Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.

   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.


Authors' Addresses

   IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
   Cisco
   De kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem,   1831
   Belgium

   Phone:
   Email: ice@cisco.com









Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    mLDP In-Band Signaling with Wildcards       March 2014


   Eric Rosen
   Cisco
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: erosen@cisco.com


   Arkadiy Gulko
   Thomson Reuters
   195 Broadway
   New York  NY 10007
   USA

   Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com


   Uwe Joorde
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   Muenster  D-48153
   DE

   Email: Uwe.Joorde@telekom.de


   Jeff Tantsura
   Ericsson
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, california  95134
   usa

   Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
















Wijnands, et al.        Expires September 4, 2014              [Page 14]


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