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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Network Working Group                                      T. Morin, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Experimental                             R. Kebler, Ed.
Expires: January 2, 2015                                      Y. Rekhter
                                                                  R. Qiu
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                             R. Aggarwal
                                                                  Arktan
                                                           W. Henderickx
                                                                P. Muley
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                            July 1, 2014


                  Multicast VPN fast upstream failover
                draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-fast-failover-06

Abstract

   This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that
   allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs
   to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when
   selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP
   MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertized toward a
   standby upstream PE.

Requirements Language

   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].

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  UMH Selection based on tunnel status  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Determining the status of a tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  mVPN tunnel root tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  PE-P Upstream link status . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.3.  P2MP RSVP-TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.4.  Leaf-initiated P-tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.5.  P2MP LSP OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.6.  (S,G) counter information . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Standby C-multicast route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Downstream PE behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Upstream PE behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Reachability determination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Inter-AS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.1.  Inter-AS procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR fast
               failover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.4.2.  Inter-AS procedures for ASBRs . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Hot leaf standby  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Duplicate packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13







Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


1.  Introduction

   In the context of multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs, 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.

   The sections 3 and 4 describe two independent mechanisms, allowing
   different levels of resiliency, and providing different failure
   coverage:

   o  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).  This method does not provide a "fast failover"
      solution when used alone, but can be used with the following
      sections for a "fast failover" solution.

   o  Section 4 describes protocol extensions that can speed up failover
      by not requiring any multicast VPN routing message exchange at
      recovery time.

   Moreover, section 5 describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism, that
   uses a combination of these two mechanisms.  This approach has
   similarities with the solution described in [I-D.mofrr] to improve
   failover times when PIM routing is used in a network given some
   topology and metric constraints.

2.  Terminology

   The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined in
   [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].

3.  UMH Selection based on tunnel status

   Current multicast VPN specifications [RFC6513], section 5.1, describe
   the procedures used by a multicast VPN downstream PE to determine
   what the upstream multicast hop (UMH) is for a said (C-S,C-G).

   The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that consist in
   having a downstream PE take into account the status of P-tunnels
   rooted at each possible upstream PEs, for including or not including
   each said PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a said (C-S,C-G)
   state.  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, which will result in the downstream PE




Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   to failover to the upstream PE which is next in the list of
   candidates.

   A downstream PE monitors the status of the tunnels of UMHs that are
   ahead of the current one.  Whenever the downstream PE determines that
   one of these tunnels is no longer "known to down", the PE selects the
   UMH corresponding to that as the new UMH.

   More precisely, UMH determination for a said (C-S,C-G) will consider
   the UMH candidates in the following order:

   o  first, the UMH candidates that either (a) advertise a PMSI bound
      to a tunnel, where the specified tunnel is not known to be down or
      (b) do not advertise any I- or S- PMSI applicable to the said
      (C-S,C-G) but have associated a VRF Route Import BGP attribute to
      the unicast VPN route for S (this is necessary to avoid
      considering invalid some UMH PEs that use a policy where no I-PMSI
      is advertized for a said VRF and where only S-PMSI are used, the
      S-PMSI advertisement being possibly done only after the upstream
      PE receives a C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G)/(C-*, C-G) to be
      carried over the advertized S-PMSI)

   o  second, the UMH candidates that advertise a PMSI bound to a tunnel
      that is "down" -- these will thus be used as a last resort to
      ensure a graceful fallback to the basic MVPN UMH selection
      procedures in the hypothetical case where a false negative would
      occur when determining the status of all tunnels

   For a said downstream PE and a said VRF, the P-tunnel corresponding
   to a said upstream PE for a said (C-S,C-G) state is the S-PMSI tunnel
   advertized by that upstream PE for this (C-S,C-G) and imported into
   that VRF, or if there isn't any such S-PMSI, the I-PMSI tunnel
   advertized by that PE and imported into that VRF.

   Note that this documents assumes that if a site of a given MVPN that
   contains C-S is dual-homed to two PEs, then all the other sites of
   that MVPN would have two unicast VPN routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6)
   routes to C-S, each with its own RD.

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.  The
   procedure proposed here also allows that all downstream PEs don't
   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 what is called
   the "status" of a P-tunnel in this section, is not a characteristic



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   of the tunnel in itself, but is the status of the tunnel, *as seen
   from a particular downstream PE*.

   Depending on the criteria used to determine the status of a P-tunnel,
   there may be an interaction with other 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 below.

3.1.1.  mVPN tunnel root tracking

   A condition to consider that the status of a P-tunnel is up is that
   the root of the tunnel, as determined in the 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.

   This 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 PMSI tunnel attribute.

   If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes, and the root address
   of a said tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop address in
   the BGP autodiscovery route advertising the tunnel, then this
   mechanisms may be omitted for this tunnel, as it will not bring any
   specific benefit.

3.1.2.  PE-P Upstream link status

   A condition to consider a tunnel status as up can be that the last-
   hop link of the P-tunnel is up.

   This method should not be used when there is a fast restoration
   mechanism (such as MPLS FRR [RFC4090]) in place for the link.

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 one or more of the P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs, identified by
   the P-Tunnel Attribute, are in up state.  The determination of
   whether a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP is in up state requires Path and Resv
   state for the LSP and is based on procedures in [RFC4875].  In this
   case the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the
   reachability condition changes.

   When 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



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   [RFC4875], the status of the corresponding P-Tunnel SHOULD be re-
   evaluated.  If the P-Tunnel transitions from up to down state, the
   upstream PE, that is the ingress of the P-Tunnel, SHOULD not be
   considered a valid UMH.

3.1.4.  Leaf-initiated P-tunnels

   A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a said (S,G) if
   the P-tunnel for this S,G (I or S , depending) is 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.
   In this case the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when
   the reachability condition changes.

3.1.5.  P2MP LSP OAM

   When a P2MP connectivity verification mechanism such as
   [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint] used in conjunction with bootstrapping
   mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mcast-cv] has been setup for a
   tunnel, the result of the connectivity verification can be used to
   define the status of the tree.

   If a MultipointHead session has been established on a P2MP MPLS LSP
   so that BFD packets are periodically sent from the root toward
   leaves, a condition to consider the status of corresponding tunnel as
   up is that the BFD SessionState is Up.

   When such a procedure is used, in context where fast restoration
   mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, downstream PEs should be
   configured to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel
   restoration mechanism happen.  A configurable timer MUST be provided
   for this purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable
   default value for this timer.

3.1.6.  (S,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
   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 context where fast restoration
   mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, downstream PEs should be
   configured to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel
   restoration mechanism happen.  A configurable timer MUST be provided
   for this purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable
   default value for this timer.



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   This method can be applicable for instance when a (S,G) flow is
   mapped on an S-PMSI.

   In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with
   Hot leaf standby, then no prior knowledge of the rate of the
   multicast streams is required ; downstream PEs can compare reception
   on the two P-tunnels to determine when one of them is down.

4.  Standby C-multicast route

   The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
   that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs.  The procedures
   require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
   selection, as specified in [RFC6513].  The procedures assume that if
   a site of a given MVPN that contains C-S is dual-homed to two PEs,
   then all the other sites of that MVPN would have two unicast VPN
   routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) routes to C-S, each with its own RD.

   As long as C-S is reachable via both PEs, a said downstream PE will
   select one of the PEs connected to C-S as its Upstream PE with
   respect to 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 with respect to
   C-S.

   For readability, in the following sub-sections, the procedures are
   described for BGP C-multicast Source Tree Join routes, but they apply
   equally to BGP C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes failover for the
   case where the customer RP is 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), then following the procedures
   specified in Section "Originating C-multicast routes by a PE" of
   [RFC6514] the PE sends the C-multicast route with 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 PE also originates and sends
   a C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Standby Upstream
   PE.  This route, that has the semantic of being a 'standby'



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   C-multicast route, is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
   route", and is constructed as follows:

   o  the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
      that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
      using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
      to the unicast VPN route advertized by the standby PE for S)

   o  SHOULD carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (this is a new BGP
      Community, see Section 7)

   The normal and the standby C-multicast routes must have their Local
   Preference attribute adjusted so that, if two C-multicast routes with
   same NLRI are received by a BGP peer, one carrying the "Standby PE"
   attribute and the other one *not* carrying the "Standby PE"
   community, then preference is given to the one *not* carrying the
   "Standby PE" attribute.  Such a situation can happen when, for
   instance due to transient unicast routing inconsistencies, 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 a Standby BGP
   C-multicast route MUST have the LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero.

   Note that, when a PE advertizes such a Standby C-multicast join for
   an (S,G) it must join the corresponding P-tunnel.

   If at some later point the local PE determines that C-S is no longer
   reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE
   becomes the Upstream PE, and the local PE re-sends the C-multicast
   route with 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 presence/absence of the
   Standby PE BGP Community).

4.2.  Upstream PE behavior

   When a PE receives a C-multicast route for a particular (C-S, C-G),
   and the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a
   particular VRF on the PE, if the route carries the Standby PE BGP
   Community, then the PE performs as follows:

      when the PE determines that C-S is not reachable through some
      other PE, the PE SHOULD 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) traffic), and the PE SHOULD forward (C-S,



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


      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) based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby BGP
      C-multicast route, the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) traffic to other
      PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the reachability of C-S
      through some other PE. [note that this implies also doing (a)]

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

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

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

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

   Section 9.3.2 of [RFC6514], describes the procedures of sending a
   Source-Active A-D result as a result of receiving the C-multicast
   route.  These procedures should be followed for both the normal and
   Standby C-multicast routes.

4.3.  Reachability determination

   The standby PE can use the following information to determine that
   C-S can or cannot be reached through the primary PE:

   o  presence/absence of a unicast VPN route toward C-S

   o  supposing that the standby PE is an egress of the tunnel rooted at
      the Primary PE, the standby PE can determine the reachability of
      C-S through the Primary PE based on the status of this tunnel,
      determined thanks to the same criteria as the ones described in



Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


      Section 3.1 (without using the UMH selection procedures of
      Section 3)

   o  other mechanisms MAY be used

4.4.  Inter-AS

   If the non-segmented inter-AS approach is used, the procedures in
   section 4 can be applied.

   When multicast VPNs are used in a inter-AS context with the segmented
   inter-AS approach described in section 8.2 of [RFC6514], the
   procedures in this section can be applied.

   A pre-requisite for the procedures described below to be applied for
   a source of a said MVPN is:

   o  that any PE of this MVPN receives two Inter-AS I-PMSI auto-
      discovery routes advertized by the AS of the source (or more)

   o  that these Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery routes have distinct
      Route Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of section 9.2 of
      [RFC6514]).

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

4.4.1.  Inter-AS procedures for 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 to choosing an Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery route
   advertized from the AS of the source to construct a C-multicast
   route, as described in section 11.1.3 [RFC6514] a downstream PE will
   choose a second Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery route advertized 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, the ASBR
   locates an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route whose RD and Source AS matches
   the RD and Source AS carried in the C-multicast route.  If the match




Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   is found, and C-multicast route carries the Standby PE BGP Community,
   then the ASBR performs as follows:

   o  if the route was received over iBGP ; the route is expected to
      have a LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero and it should be re-
      advertized in eBGP with a MED attribute (MULTI_EXIT_DISC) set to
      the highest possible value (0xffff)

   o  if the route was received over eBGP ; the route is expected to
      have a MED attribute set of 0xffff and should be re-advertized in
      iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero

   Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification.

5.  Hot leaf standby

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

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

   o  downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based on
      Section 4)

   o  upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and thus will
      forward traffic for a said multicast state as soon as they have
      whether a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
      C-multicast route for that state (or both)

   o  downstream PEs accept traffic from the primary or standby tunnel,
      based on the status of the tunnel (based on Section 3)

   Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in Section 4) and
   Section 3 are for further study.

   Note that the same level of protection would be achievable with a
   simple C-multicast Source Tree Join route advertized to both the
   primary and secondary upstream PEs (carrying as Route Target extended
   communities, the values of the VRF Route Import attribute of each VPN
   route from each upstream PEs).  The advantage of using the Standby
   semantic for 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, without requiring any reconfiguration of
   all the downstream PEs.





Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


6.  Duplicate packets

   Multicast VPN specifications [RFC6513] impose that a PE only forwards
   to CEs the packets coming from the expected usptream PE
   (Section 9.1).

   We highlight the reader's attention to the fact that the respect of
   this part of multicast VPN specifications is especially important
   when two distinct upstream PEs are susceptible to forward the same
   traffic on P-tunnels at the same time in steady state.  This will be
   the case when "hot root standby" mode is used (Section 4), and which
   can also be the case if procedures of Section 3 are used and (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 depend on conditions local to a PE (e.g. the PE-P upstream link
   being up).

7.  IANA Considerations

   Allocation is expected from IANA for the BGP "Standby PE" community.
   (TBC)

   [Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.]

8.  Security Considerations

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors want to thank Greg Reaume and Eric Rosen for their review
   and useful feedback.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC6513]  Aggarwal, R., Bandi, S., Cai, Y., Morin, T., Rekhter, Y.,
              Rosen, E., Wijnands, I., and S. Yasukawa, "Multicast in
              MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.




Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mcast-cv]
              Swallow, G., "Connectivity Verification for Multicast
              Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-cv-00 (work
              in progress), April 2007.

   [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint]
              Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks",
              draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02 (work in progress),
              February 2009.

   [I-D.mofrr]
              Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Farinacci, D., Decraene, B.,
              Leymann, N., and T. Telkamp, "Multicast only Fast Re-
              Route", draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-04 (work in progress),
              November 2014.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
              2005.

Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com


   Robert Kebler (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   U.S.A.

   Email: rkebler@juniper.net







Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         mVPN fast upstream failover             July 2014


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

   Email: yakov@juniper.net


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

   Email: rqiu@juniper.net


   Rahul Aggarwal
   Arktan

   Email: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com


   Wim Henderickx
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp  2018
   Belgium

   Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com


   Praveen Muley
   Alcatel-Lucent
   701 East Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View, CA  94043
   U.S.A.

   Email: praveen.muley@alcatel-lucent.com











Morin, et al.            Expires January 2, 2015               [Page 14]


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