Internet-Draft | MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure | May 2023 |
Duan & Xie | Expires 14 November 2023 | [Page] |
MVPN deployment faces some problems while used in provider's IPv6 infrastructure networks. This document describes these problems, and corresponding solutions.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
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 14 November 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
BGP MVPN procedure is defined in [RFC6514]. As a mature MVPN technology, it has been accepted by most operators and vendors. In [RFC6515], BGP MVPN is updated for IPv6 infrastructure networks. However, the deployment of BGP MVPN in IPv6 network still faces some problems. This document describes these problems and corresponding solutions.¶
Readers of this document are assumed to be familiar with the terminology and concepts of the documents listed as Normative References.¶
In [RFC6514] and [RFC6515], the following issues are critical for IPv6 infrastructure scenarios while a non-segmented inter-AS P-tunnel is being established between root PE and its leaf PEs, of which the reason is that the Source AS field (4 octets) of C-multicast route cannot hold a IPv6 address (16 octets).¶
In the process of evolution to IPv6, IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure addresses will coexist in the provider's network. The following figure is an example of BGP MVPN evolution to IPv6.¶
During the evolution process, IPv4 and IPv6 parallel BGP sessions are established between Provider Edge routers and route reflectors(RR). If the BGP MVPN routes are sent to all IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers without any control, the number of the PATHs of these routes will be doubled with each reflection while BGP ADD-PATH [RFC7911] procedure is enabled on route reflectors.¶
The solution to distinguish the C-multicast routes sent to different root PEs is related to the way to distinguish UMH routes for a specific multicast source (C-S) sent from different root PEs, which the later is not a problem of IPv6 infrastructure specific. In [RFC6514], it recommended that the RDs of root PEs of a same MVPN were configured distinctly to perform selective forwarding selection, which was broken by GTM procedures defined in [RFC7716] because the UMH routes sent from different root PEs through BGP SAFI 1 or SAFI 2 lack RD informations. There are also some MVPN deployment cases that the RDs of root PEs may be configuered with a same value for provisioning reasons. According to above description, whether the RDs of PEs of a MVPN are same or not are two different deployment cases. This document addresses the C-multicast routes distinguishing issue for both cases. How to distinguish UMH routes in the cases of root PEs with same RD is out of the scope of this document, because it is not IPv6 infrastructure specific.¶
To support non-segmented inter-AS tunnels in IPv6 infrastructure network, the C-multicast route NLRI is redefined as follow:¶
+-----------------------------------+ | RD (8 octets) | +-----------------------------------+ | Root Distinguisher (4 octets) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Source Length (1 octet) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Source (variable) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Group Length (1 octet) | +-----------------------------------+ | Multicast Group (variable) | +-----------------------------------+¶
In the above figure, the Root Distinguisher field replaces the Source As field defined in [RFC6514]. When constructing a C-multicast route, leaf PE follows the following specification:¶
The solution to control the propagation of C-multicast route between different ASes is to use the IPv6 address included in IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community insteading of Source AS field of C-multicast NLRI while locating Intra-AS AD route of the corresponding root PE the C-multicast sent to on ASBRs. This document recommends that the Local Administrator field of IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community is set to a non-zero value by root PEs even in GTM scenarios, of which the value is local assigned distinctly by root PE for both each MVPN and GTM instance. Accordingly, the IPv6 root address of a C-multicast route can be extracted from the only IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community carring a non-zero Local Administrator field.¶
When receiving a C-multicast route from E-BGP neighbors, the ASBR checks whether an IPv6 VRF Route Import Extended Community with a non-zero Local Administrator field is included in this route and takes following actions:¶
To reduce BGP MVPN routes in Parallel IPv4 and IPv6 BGP sessions scenario, the following actions should be taken by sender PEs:¶
In the route reflectors, the part of routes which are received from IPv6 BGP neighbors will be reflected to other IPv6 BGP neighbors and the other part of routes which are received from IPv4 BGP neighbors will be reflected to other IPv4 BGP neighbors.¶
This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those already specified in [RFC6514] and [RFC6515].¶
This document contains no actions for IANA.¶
Your name here¶