Support C-Bidir with Ingress Replication draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication Jeffrey Zhang Yakov Rekhter Andrew Dolganow 87th IETF, Berlin.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 BGP based Virtual Private Multicast Service Auto-Discovery and Signaling.
Advertisements

Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs and VPLS draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-mvpn-vpls-mcast-
MVPN UMH Selection Procedures using Source-Active A-D Routes
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 MVPN Extranet First, a little background: MVPN Effort that began in 2004 culminated in the set of RFCs in 2012! (Well, really.
Draft-li-mpls-global-label-usecases-00IETF 88 SPRING WG1 Usecases of MPLS Global Label draft-li-mpls-global-label-usecases-00 Zhenbin Li, Quintin Zhao.
Multicast VPN using BIER IETF 91, Honolulu ietf
Draft-ni-l3vpn-pm-bgp-ext-00IETF 87 L3VPN1 BGP Extension For L3VPN PM draft-ni-l3vpn-pm-bgp-ext-00 Hui Ni, Shunwan Zhuan, Zhenbin Li Huawei Technologies.
L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71 Global Table Multicast (GTM) Based on MVPN Protocols and Procedures draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast-01.txt Service providers.
L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71 Ingress Replication P-Tunnels in MVPN I ngress Replication has always been one of the P-tunnel technologies supported by MVPN But there’s.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 BGP AS AN MVPN PE-CE Protocol draft-keyupate-l3vpn-mvpn-pe-ce-00 Keyur Patel,
IETF 68, MPLS WG, Prague P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-01.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal.
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 BGP/MPLS IP Multicast VPNs draft-yasukawa-l3vpn-p2mp-mcast-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa (NTT) Shankar Karuna (Motorola)
BESS WG2015-Mar-251 MVPN Explicit Tracking and S-PMSI Wildcards RFCs 6513/6514 provide explicit tracking mechanism, to be optionally used when sending.
L3VPN WG2014-Jul-221 Ingress Replication P-Tunnels in MVPN I ngress Replication (IR) is one of the MVPN P-tunnel technologies But there’s a lot of confusing.
March 21, 2006L3VPN WG 1 MVPN Update New version of “bgp encoding” draft –BGP update syntax and semantics reworked to reflect current thinking –Inter-AS.
Softwire Mesh Framework: Multicast Mingwei Xu Yong Cui CERNET, China Chris Metz, Cisco 68 th IETF Meeting, Prague March 2007.
MPLS WG1 Targeted mLDP Base mLDP spec didn’t consider use of LDP multipoint extensions over Targeted mLDP sessions LDP speaker must choose “upstream LSR”,
July 24, 2007IETF 69, L3VPN WG1 Progress on Arch Doc draft-ietf-l3vpn-mcast-2547bis-mcast-05 Areas of new work: –Clarification of upstream multicast hop.
Segment-based EVPN (S-EVPN) draft-li-l2vpn-segment-evpn-01 Zhenbin Li (Presenter) Lucy Yong Junlin Zhang March, 2014 London United Kingdom.
PIM-BIDIR RP Resiliency Jeffrey Zhang, Kurt Windisch, Jaroslaw Adam Gralak Juniper Networks 88 th IETF, Vancouver.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in VPLS draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal.
Support C-Bidir with Ingress Replication draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication Jeffrey Zhang Yakov Rekhter Andrew Dolganow 89 th IETF, London.
Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast London, 89 th IETF L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71.
December 5, 2007IETF 70 L3VPN WG1 MVPN Profiles Why do we need “profiles”? –By design, architecture provides many choices: PE-PE C-multicast routing info.
Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MP LSP Ingress/Egress Local Protection draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-egress-protection Huaimo.
L3VPN WG mLDP Recursive FEC Using mLDP through a Backbone where there is no Route to the Root draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec Name changed.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 Bidirectional P-tunnels in MVPN Bidirectional P-tunnel: MP2MP LSP per RFC 6388 PIM MDT per RFC 5015, GRE Encapsulation Accommodated.
82 nd Taipei Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-00.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Huawei.
Multicast State Advertisement in EVPN draft-li-l2vpn-evpn-multicast-state-ad Zhenbin Li Junlin Zhang Huawei Technologies July, 2013 Berlin Germany.
Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MP LSP Ingress/Egress Local Protection draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-egress-protection Huaimo.
Avoiding Unnecessary Upstream Traffic in Bidir-PIM Jeffrey Zhang Weesan Lee Juniper Networks 82th IETF, Taipei.
RSVP-TE Extensions to Realize Dynamic Binding of Associated Bidirectional LSP CCAMP/MPLS WG, IETF 79th, Beijing, China draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.
1 IETF74 – L3VPN – Multicast VPN fast fail-over IETF 74 th meeting, San Francisco – L3VPN WG Multicast VPN fast fail-over draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-fast-failover-00.
Analysis on Two Methods in Ingress Local Protection.
MVPN/EVPN C-Multicast/SMET Route Enhancements Zhaohui Zhang, Robert Kebler Wen Lin, Eric Rosen Juniper Networks 96 th IETF, Berlin.
Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN Protocol
Softwire Mesh Framework: Multicast
Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPN
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels
MVPN Update Continued work on both architecture draft and BGP-MVPN draft Seeing “light at end of tunnel” ☺ Progress since last time: Carrier’s carrier.
Multicast VPN using BIER
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudo-Wire Encapsulation draft-raggarwa-pwe3-p2mp-pw-encaps-00.txt R. Aggarwal (Juniper)
Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MP LSP Ingress/Egress Local Protection
Time to Start New Work Items
Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MP LSP Ingress/Egress Local Protection
78th IETF Meeting - Maastricht 27th, July 2010
EVPN BUM Procedures Update
RFC 3036 FECs RFC 3036 defines FECs used to bind labels to address prefixes in routing table Two FECs defined: Address Prefix FEC Host Address FEC Not.
Multicast Pruning for PBB-VPLS
Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Technologies
BIER for EVPN BUM Traffic
Update on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track A. Dolganow J. Kotalwar E
An Introduction to MPLS-PIM Interworking
MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels Zhaohui Zhang (Juniper) Eric Rosen (Juniper) Wen Lin (Juniper) Zhenbin Li (Huawei) BESS WG 20-March-2018.
MVPN / EVPN Composite Tunnel
EVPN Inter-subnet Multicast Forwarding
Implementing Multicast
Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs
Inter-AS MVPN: Multihoming Considerations
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
Multicast in L3VPN Signaled by EVPN Type-5 Routes
Extended Optimized Ingress Replication for EVPN
BGP Signaled Multicast
Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
BGP Signaled Multicast
MVPN/EVPN-BUM Segmented Forwarding
MVPN/MSDP SA Interoperation
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-mvpn- seamless-interop-02.txt
BIER Penultimate Hop Popping draft-zzhang-bier-php-00
Presentation transcript:

Support C-Bidir with Ingress Replication draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication Jeffrey Zhang Yakov Rekhter Andrew Dolganow 87th IETF, Berlin

MVPN support for C-bidir C-bidir: PE-CE multicast protocol being PIM-Bidir PIM-Bidir: Designated Forwarder election required on LAN MVPN backbone is a simulated LAN Ways to avoid DF election in the MVPN backbone Backbone becomes the RPL: Section 11.1, RFC 6513 Partitioned set of PEs: Section 11.2, RFC 6513

Partitioned set of PEs PEs are grouped into partitions wrt a particular C-RPA A partition includes all PEs selecting the same UMH wrt the C-RPA A PE only accepts traffic from PEs in the same partition Traffic carry a label corresponding to the UMH: Section 11.2.2 Advertised as PE Distinguisher (PED) label Upstream allocated by tunnel root Cumbersome for Ingress Replication (IR) P-tunnel Each partition uses its own Bidirectional P-tunnel: Section 11.2.3 Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-Tunnels What if one wants to use IR?

Simulating “Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-tunnels” with IR: The “normal” way An MP2MP tunnel could be simulated by a set of IR tunnels One IR tunnel rooted at each PE on the MP2MP tunnel Consisting of a set of P2P LSPs One P2P LSP to each other PE on the tunnel Each PE originates a Leaf A-D route for each IR tunnel N-square

Simulating “Partial Mesh of MP2MP P-tunnels” with IR: Proposed Optimization One S-PMSI A-D route from the UMH wrt a C-RPA Identifying the MP2MP tunnel PTA specifies IR and includes a label that the UMH would not allocate for any other PE For other PEs to send traffic to the UMH Typically, different labels are allocated for different PEs So that traffic can be associated with the sending PEs In this case, we want to associate the traffic with the partition (represented by the UMH) One Leaf A-D route responded from each PE in the same partition When it has relevant local states – details later Imported by all PEs: Not just by the S-PMSI originator PTA includes a label corresponding to the UMH For other PEs to send traffic to the Leaf A-D route’s originator Associate the traffic with the partition (represented by the UMH)

S-PMSI A-D Routes Originated only by PEs that have local routes (through a VRF interface) to one or more C-RPAs A (C-*,C-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is always originated From each PE that has a local route to any C-RPA A single (C-*,C-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route is originated even if a PE has local routes to multiple C-RPAs One or more (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes can be originated by a PE with local routes to the C-G-BIDIR’s C-RPA By typical triggers for S-PMSI An S-PMSI A-D route identifies an MP2MP tunnel With leaves including the originators of the matching S-PMSI and Leaf A-D routes

When to respond with Leaf A-D routes A PE responds to a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route If it has local C-G-BIDIR join states learned from its CEs A PE responds to a (C-*,C-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route If it has ANY local C-G-BIDIR join states learned from its CEs Where S-PMSI A-D route’s originator is the UMH wrt the C-G- BIDIR’s C-RPA Optionally, a PE may respond even when the UMH is not the S- PMSI A-D route’s originator In this case, traffic will arrive from PEs outside its own petition, with a label corresponding to a PE different from the UMH, and shall be discarded May be useful for live-live protection

PIM-Bidir Forwarding States PIM-Bidir has (*,G) and (*,G-prefix) forwarding states Implementation dependent – but assumed in this proposal for exemplary purpose (*,G) states for groups with explicit joins (*,G-prefix) states for “sender-only-branches” (no joins) A G-prefix is a group range, where all groups in the range have the same RPA

PIM-Bidir Forwarding States in VRFs Denoted as (C-*,C-G-Bidir) or (C-*,C-G-Bidir-prefix) OIF List = local OIFs + P-Tunnel branches For a (C-*,C-G-Bidir) S-PMSI A-D route from the UMH Install (C-*,C-G-Bidir) forwarding state with P-tunnel branches determined by the S-PMSI A-D route and matching Leaf-AD routes For a (C-*,C-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route Install (C-*,C-G-Bidir-prefix) routes, with P-tunnel branches determined by the S-PMSI A-D route and matching Leaf A-D routes If the S-PMSI A-D route’s originator is the UMH wrt C-G-Bidir-prefix’s C-RPA For a (C-*,C-G-bidir) local join state w/o (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route: Install (C-*,C-G-Bidir) forwarding state, with P-tunnel branches determined by the (C-*,C-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route and matching Leaf A-D routes

Plan Seek review and comments Seek WG adoption Revision to be posted soon to address comments from Eric Rosen Seek WG adoption

11