[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                          R. Parekh
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track                        A. Venkateswaran
Expires: September 12, 2019                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              H. Bidgoli
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                D. Voyer
                                                               C. Hassen
                                                             Bell Canada
                                                          March 11, 2019


     Multicast VPN with Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Segment
                 draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-sr-p2mp-00.txt

Abstract

   A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segment in a Segment Routing domain
   efficiently carries traffic from a Root to a set of Leaves.  This
   document describes extensions to BGP encodings and procedures for
   P2MP segments used in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.

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 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 September 12, 2019.







Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  P2MP Segment P-Tunnels for MPVN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute for P2MP Segment  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  MPLS Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  SR MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Auto-Discovery and Binding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Intra-AS I-PMSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Originating Intra-AS I-PMSI routes  . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Using S-PMSIs for binding customer flows to P2MP Segments   7
       4.2.1.  Originating S-PMSI A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Receiving S-PMSI A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Inter-AS P-tunnels using P2MP Segments  . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  Advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI routes into iBGP  . . . .   8
       4.3.2.  Receiving Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes in iBGP  . . . .   8
     4.4.  Leaf A-D routes for P2MP Segment Leaf Discovery . . . . .   8
       4.4.1.  Originating Leaf A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.2.  Receiving Leaf A-D routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Damping of MVPN routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12







Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


1.  Introduction

   RFC 6513 [RFC6513] and RFC 6514 [RFC6514] specify procedures that
   allow a Service Provider to provide Multicast VPN (MVPN) service to
   its customers.  Multicast traffic from a customer is tunneled across
   the service provider network over Provider Tunnels (P-Tunnels).
   P-tunnels can be instantiated via different technologies.  A service
   provider network that uses Segment Routing can use a Point-to-
   Multipoint Segment [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] (Tree-SID P2MP
   segment) to instantiate P-Tunnels for MVPN.

   In a Segment Routing network, a P2MP segment allows efficient
   delivery of traffic from a Root to set of Leaf nodes.  A P2MP segment
   is defined by a P2MP segment Policy and instantiated via a P2MP
   policy engine.  A P2MP segment Policy consists of a Root, a Set of
   Leaf Nodes and an optional set of constraints to be satisfied by the
   P2MP segment.  A unique P2MP segment Identifier (P2MP SID) is
   associated with a P2MP segment.  This P2MP SID can be an MPLS label
   or an IPv6 address.

   This document describes extensions to BGP Auto-Discovery procedures
   specified in RFC 6514 [RFC6514] when P-Tunnels are realized by P2MP
   segments (via P2MP segment Policy).  Use of PIM for Auto-Discovery is
   outside scope of this document.  Support for customer BIDIR-PIM is
   outside the scope of this document.

   The reader is expected to be familiar with concepts and terminology
   of RFC 6513, RFC 6514 and SR P2MP draft.

2.  P2MP Segment P-Tunnels for MPVN

   For MVPN, Provider Edge(PE) routers steer customer multicast traffic
   into a P-Tunnel instantiated by P2MP segment.  A Tree-SID P2MP
   segment is defined by a P2MP segment policy
   [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy].

   A P2MP policy engine provides conceptual APIs, listed below, to
   define and modify P2MP segment policies.  These APIs can be invoked
   by different methods (BGP, PCEP, etc.) which are outside the scope of
   this document.

      CreatePolicy: TBD

      DeletePolicy: TBD

      AddLeaf: TBD

      DeleteLeaf: TBD



Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   For a SR P2MP segment policy, the P2MP Policy Engine computes and
   instantiates the Tree-SID P2MP segment on the nodes that are part of
   the segment using an Identifier (TreeSID) and a SR Replication
   [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy].  A TreeSID segment can be
   initiated by various methods (BGP, PCEP, others) which are outside
   the scope of this document.

   the Root of a P2MP segment imposes the P2MP SID to steer the customer
   payload into the P2MP segment.  Provider (P) routers replicate
   customer payload, using the P2MP SID, towards the Leaf nodes of the
   P2MP segment .Leaf nodes of the P2MP segment deliver the customer
   payload after dispoing the P2MP SID.

3.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute for P2MP Segment

   A PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) is defined in RFC 6514 [RFC6514] to
   identify the P-Tunnel that is used to instantiate a Provider
   Multicast Service Interface (PMSI).  The PTA is carried in Intra-AS
   I-PMSI, Inter-AS I-PMSI, Selective PMSI, and Leaf Auto-Discovery
   routes.

   A P2MP segment PTA is constructed as follows:

   o  Tunnel Type: The codepoint is set to [[CREF1: TBD]]for P2MP
      segment from the "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI
      Tunnel) Tunnel Types" registry.

   o  Flags: See Section 4 for use of "Leaf Info Required bit".

   o  MPLS Label: See Section 3.1

   o  Tunnel Identifier: The P2MP segment P-Tunnel is identified by
      <Tree-ID, Root> where,

      *  Tree-ID is a 32-bit unsigned value that identifies a unique
         P2MP segment at a Root..

      *  Root is an IP address identifying the Root of a P2MP segment.
         This can be either an IPv4 or IPv6 address and can be inferred
         from the PTA length.

   When a P-Tunnel is non-segmented the PTA is created by PE router at
   the Root of a P2MP segment.  For segmented P-tunnels, each segment
   can be instantiated by a different technology.  If a segment is
   instantiated using P2MP segment, the router at the root of a P2MP
   segment creates the PTA.





Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


3.1.  MPLS Label

   [RFC6514] allows a PE to aggregate two or more MVPNs onto one
   P-tunnel by advertising the same P-tunnel in PTA of Auto-Discovery
   routes of different MVPNs.  This section specifies how the "MPLS
   Label" field of PTA is filled to provide a context bound to a
   specific MPVN.

3.1.1.  SR MPLS

   When a P2MP segment P-tunnel, shared across different MVPNs, is
   instantiated in a SR MPLS domain
   [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls], "MPLS Field" of a PTA
   advertised in a Auto-Discovery route MUST contain an upstream-
   assigned MPLS label that the advertising PE has bound to the MVPN.

   When a customer payload is steered into a shared P2MP segment
   P-tunnel, this MPLS label MUST be imposed before the MPLS label
   reprsenting the P2MP SID.

4.  Auto-Discovery and Binding Procedures

   RFC 6514 [RFC6514] defines procedures for discovering PEs
   participating in a given MVPN and binding customer multicast flows to
   specific P-Tunnels.  This section specifies modifications to these
   procedures when P-Tunnels are instantiated by P2MP segments.

4.1.  Intra-AS I-PMSI

   Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes are exchanged to discover PEs
   participating in a MVPN within an AS, or across different ASes when
   non-segmented P-tunnels for inter-AS MVPNs.

4.1.1.  Originating Intra-AS I-PMSI routes

   RFC 6514 Section 9.1.1 [1] describes procedures for originating
   Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.  For P2MP segment P-tunnels, these
   procedures remain unchanged except as described in the following
   paragraphs.

   When a PE originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having
   P2MP segment Tunnel Type, it MUST create a P2MP segment policy by
   invoking CreatePolicy API of the P2MP Policy Engine.  When the P2MP
   Policy Engine instantiates the P2MP segment on the PE, the P2MP SID
   MUST be imposed for customer flow(s) steered into the P2MP segment.
   The Leaf nodes of P2MP segment are discovered using procedures
   described in Section 4.1.2.




Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   For a PE in "Receiver Sites set", condition (c) is modified to
   include P2MP segment i.e. such a PE MUST originate an Intra-AS I-PMSI
   A-D route when some PEs of the MVPN have VRFs that use P2MP segment
   but MUST NOT create a P2MP segment policy as described above.

   When a PE withdraws an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a
   PTA having P2MP segment Tunnel Type, the P2MP SID imposition state at
   the PE MUST be removed.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more Intra-AS I-PMSIs from different MVPNs
   onto the same P2MP segment P-Tunnel.  When a PE withdraws the last
   Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a PTA identifying a P2MP
   segment P-Tunnel , it SHOULD remove the P2MP segment policy by
   invoking DeletePolicy API of the P2MP policy engine.

4.1.2.  Receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes

   Procedure for receiving Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes, as described in
   RFC 6514 Section 9.1.2 [2], remain unchanged for P2MP segment
   P-tunnels except as described in the following paragraph.

   When a PE that advertises a P2MP segment in the PTA of its Intra-AS
   I-PMSI A-D route, imports an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from some PE,
   it MUST add that PE as a Leaf node of the P2MP segment.  The
   Originating IP Address of the Intra-AS i-PMSI A-D route is used as
   the Leaf Address when invoking AddLeaf API of the P2MP Policy Engine.
   This procedure MUST also be followed for all Intra-AS I-PMSI routes
   that are already imported when the PE advertises a P2MP segment in
   PTA of its Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route.

   A PE that imports and processes an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from
   another PE with PTA having Tunnel Type as P2MP segment MUST program
   the P2MP SID of the P2MP segment identified in the PTA of the route
   for disposition.  Note that an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from another
   PE can be imported before the P2MP segment identified in the PTA of
   the route is instantiated by the P2MP policy engine at the importing
   PE.  In such case, the PE MUST correctly program P2MP SID for
   disposition.  A PE in "Sender Sites set" MAY avoid programming the
   P2MP SID for disposition.

   When an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, advertised with a PTA having P2MP
   segment Tunnel Type is withdrawn, a PE MUST remove the disposition
   state of the P2MP SID associated with P2MP segment.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more Intra-AS I-PMSIs from different MVPNs
   onto the same P2MP segment P-Tunnel.  When a remote PE withdraws an
   Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route from a MVPN, and if this is the last MVPN




Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   sharing a P2MP segment P-tunnel, a PE must remove the originating PE
   as a Leaf from the P2MP segment, by invoking DeleteLeaf API.

4.2.  Using S-PMSIs for binding customer flows to P2MP Segments

   RFC 6514 [RFC6514] specifies procedures for binding (C-S,C-G)
   customer flows to P-tunnels using S-PMSI A-D routes.  RFC 6525
   [RFC6625] specifies additional procedures to binding aggregate
   customer flows to P-tunnels using "wildcard" S-PMSI A-D routes.  This
   section describes modification to these procedures when P2MP segment
   P-tunnels.

4.2.1.  Originating S-PMSI A-D routes

   RFC 6514 Section 12.1 [3] describes procedures for originating S-PMSI
   A-D routes.  For P2MP segment P-tunnels, these procedures remain
   unchanged except as described in the following paragraphs.

   When a PE originates S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having P2MP segment
   Tunnel Type, it MUST set the "Leaf Info Required bit" in the PTA.
   The PE MUST create a P2MP segment policy by invoking1 API of the P2MP
   Policy Engine.  When the P2MP Policy Engine instantiates the P2MP
   segment on the PE, the P2MP SID MUST be imposed for customer flow(s)
   steered into the P2MP segment P-Tunnel.

   The Leaf nodes of P2MP segment are discovered by Leaf A-D routes
   using procedures described in Section 4.4.2.  When a PE originates
   S-PMSI A-D route with a PTA having P2MP segment Tunnel Type, it is
   possible the PE might have imported Leaf A-D routes whose route keys
   match the S-PMSI A-D route.  The PE MUST re-apply procedures of
   Section 4.4.2 to these Leaf A-D routes.

   When a PE withdraws a S-PMSI A-D route, advetised with PTA having
   P2MP segment P-tunnle type, the P2MP SID imposition state MUST be
   removed.

   A PE MAY aggregate two or more S-PMSIs onto the same P2MP segment
   P-Tunnel.  When a PE withdraws the last S-PMSI A-D route, advertised
   with a PTA identifying a specific P2MP segment P-Tunnel , it SHOULD
   remove the P2MP segment policy by invoking DeletePolicy API of the
   P2MP policy engine.

4.2.2.  Receiving S-PMSI A-D routes

   RFC 6514 Section 12.3 [4] describes procedures for receiving S-PMSI
   A-D routes.  For P2MP segment P-tunnels, these procedures remain
   unchanged except as described in the following paragraphs.




Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   The procedure to join P2MP segment P-Tunnel of S-PMSI A-D route by
   using a Leaf A-D route is described in Section 4.4.1.  If P2MP
   segment identified in PTA of S-PMSI A-D route is already instantiated
   by P2MP policy engine, the PE MUST program P2MP SID for disposition.
   If the P2MP segment is instantiated later, the P2MP SID MUST be
   programmed for disposition at that time.

   When a S-PMSI A-D route, whose P2MP segment P-Tunnel is joined by a
   PE, is withdrawn, or when conditions (see RFC 6514 Section 12.3 [5])
   required to join that P-Tunnel are no longer satisfied, the PE MUST
   leave the P-Tunnel.  The PE MUST withdraw the Leaf A-D route it had
   originated and remove the P2MP SID disposition state.

4.3.  Inter-AS P-tunnels using P2MP Segments

   A segmented inter-AS P-tunnel consists of one or more intra-AS
   segments, one in each AS, connected by inter-AS segments between
   ASBRs of different ASes <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-
   9.2>.  These segments are constructed by PEs/ASBRs originating or re-
   advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.  This section describes
   procedures for instantiating intra-AS segments using P2MP segments.

4.3.1.  Advertising Inter-AS I-PMSI routes into iBGP

   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.2 [6] specifies procedures for advertising an
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route to construct an intra-AS segment.  The PTA
   of the route identifies the type and identifier of the P-tunnel
   instantiating the intra-AS segment.  The procedure for creating P2MP
   segment P-Tunnel for intra-AS segment are same as specified in
   Section 4.2.1 except that instead of S-PMSI A-D routes, the
   procedures apply to Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes.

4.3.2.  Receiving Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes in iBGP

   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.2 [7] specifies procedures for processing an
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route received via iBGP.  If the PTA of the
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route has P2MP segment Tunnel Type, the
   procedures are same as specified in Section 4.2.2 except that instead
   of S-PMSI A-D routes, the procedures apply to Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D
   routes.  If the receiving router is an ASBR, the P2MP SID is stitched
   to the inter-AS segments to ASBRs in other ASes.

4.4.  Leaf A-D routes for P2MP Segment Leaf Discovery

   This section describes procedures for originating and processing Leaf
   A-D routes used for Leaf discovery of P2MP segment P-tunnels.





Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


4.4.1.  Originating Leaf A-D routes

   The procedures for originating Leaf A-D route in response to
   receiving a S-PMSI or Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route with PTA having P2MP
   segment Tunnel Type are same as specified in RFC 6514
   Section 9.2.3.4.1 [8].

4.4.2.  Receiving Leaf A-D routes

   Procedures for processing a received Leaf A-D route are specified in
   RFC 6514 Section 9.2.3.5 [9].  These procedures remain unchanged for
   discovering Leaf nodes of P2MP segments except for considerations
   described in following paragraphs.  These procedures apply to Leaf
   A-D routes received in response to both S-PMSI and Inter-AS I-PMSI
   A-D routes, shortened to "A-D routes" in this section

   A Root PE/ASBR MAY aggregate two or more A-D routes on the same P2MP
   segment P-Tunnel.  For such aggregated P2MP segments, the PE/ASBR MAY
   receive multiple Leaf A-D routes from a Leaf PEt.  The P2MP segment
   for which a Leaf A-D is received can be identified by examining the
   P2MP tunnel Identifier in the PTA of A-D route that matches "Route
   Key" field of the Leaf A-D route.  When the PE receives the first
   Leaf A-D route from a Leaf PE, identified by the Originating Router's
   IP address field, it MUST add that PE as Leaf of the P2MP segment by
   invoking the AddLeaf API of the P2MP policy engine.

   When a Leaf PE withdraws the last Leaf A-D route for a given P2MP
   segment, the Root PE MUST remove the Leaf PE from the P2MP segment by
   invoking DeleteLeaf API of P2MP policy engine.  Note that Root PE MAY
   remove the P2MP segment, via the DeletePolicyAPI, before the last
   Leaf A-D is withdrawn.  In this case, the Root PE MAY decide to not
   invoke the DeleteLeaf API.

5.  Damping of MVPN routes

   When P2MP segments are used as P-Tunnels for S-PMSI A-D routes,
   change in group membership of receivers connected to PEs has direct
   impact on the Leaf node set of a P2MP segment.  If group membership
   changes frequently for a large number of groups with a lot of
   receivers across sites connected to different PEs, it can have an
   impact on the interaction between PEs and the P2MP policy engine.

   Since Leaf A-D routes are used to discover Leaf PE of a P2MP segment,
   it is RECOMMENDED that PEs SHOULD damp Leaf A-D routes as described
   in Section 6.1 of RFC 7899 [RFC7899].  PEs MAY also implement
   procedures for damping other Auto-Discovery and BGP C-multicast
   routes as described in [RFC7899].




Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA to assign a codepoint [[CREF2: TBD]] for "P2MP segment" in the
   "P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types"
   registry.

7.  Security Considerations

   The procedures in this document do not introduce any additional
   security considerations beyond those mentioned in [RFC6513] and
   [RFC6514].  For general security considerations applicable to P2MP
   segments, please refer to [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] .

8.  Contributors

   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   US

   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Jayant Kotalwar
   Nokia
   Mountain View
   US

   Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com

   Tanmoy Kundu
   Nokia
   Mountain View
   US

   Email: tanmoy.kundu@nokia.com

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy]
              daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Hassen, C., Gillis, K.,
              Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., and H. Bidgoli, "SR Replication
              Policy for P2MP Service Delivery", draft-voyer-spring-sr-
              p2mp-policy-01 (work in progress), October 2018.







Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
              Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
              "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", draft-filsfils-
              spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 (work in progress), August
              2014.

   [RFC6625]  Rosen, E., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., Hendrickx, W., and R.
              Qiu, "Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes",
              RFC 6625, DOI 10.17487/RFC6625, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6625>.

   [RFC7899]  Morin, T., Ed., Litkowski, S., Patel, K., Zhang, Z.,
              Kebler, R., and J. Haas, "Multicast VPN State Damping",
              RFC 7899, DOI 10.17487/RFC7899, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7899>.

9.3.  URIs

   [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.1.1

   [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.1.2

   [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-12.1

   [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-12.3

   [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-12.3

   [6] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.2.3.2




Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   [7] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.2.3.2

   [8] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.2.3.4.1

   [9] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6514#section-9.2.3.5

Authors' Addresses

   Rishabh Parekh
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: riparekh@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Arvind Venkateswaran
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: arvvenka@cisco.com


   Hooman Bidgoli
   Nokia
   Ottawa
   CA

   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com


   Daniel Voyer
   Bell Canada
   Montreal
   CA

   Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca



Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        BGP MVPN with SR P2MP Segment           March 2019


   Clayton Hassen
   Bell Canada
   Vancouver
   CA

   Email: clayton.hassen@bell.ca













































Parekh, et al.         Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 13]


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