Network Working Group H. Bidgoli, Ed. Internet-Draft J. Kotalwar Intended status: Informational Nokia Expires: May 5, 2021 I. Wijnands M. Mishra Cisco System Z. Zhang Juniper Networks E. Leyton Verizon November 01, 2020 M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core draft-ietf-bier-mldp-signaling-over-bier-00 Abstract Consider an end to end Multipoint LDP (mLDP) network, where it is desirable to deploy BIER in portion of this network. It might be desirable to deploy BIER with minimum disruption to the mLDP network or redesign of the network. This document describes the procedure needed for mLDP tunnels to be signaled over and stitched through a BIER core, allowing LDP routers to run traditional mLDP services through a BIER core. 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 May 5, 2021. Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. mLDP Signaling Through BIER domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Ingress BBR procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Automatic tLDP session Creation . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. ECMP Method on IBBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Egress BBR procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. IBBR procedure for arriving upstream assigned label . 6 4. Datapath Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Datapath traffic flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Recursive FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction Some operators that are using mLDP P2MP LSPs for their multicast transport would like to deploy BIER technology in some segment of their network. This draft explains a method to signal mLDP services through a BIER domain, with minimal disruption and operational impact to the mLDP domain. 2. Conventions used in this document 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]. Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 2.1. Definitions Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and extended by necessary definitions: BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication (The overall architecture of forwarding multicast using a Bit Position). BFR: Bit Forwarding Router (A router that participates in Bit Index Multipoint Forwarding). A BFR is identified by a unique BFR Prefix in a BIER domain. BFIR: Bit Forwarding Ingress Router (The ingress border router that inserts the Bit Map into the packet). Each BFIR must have a valid BFR-id assigned. BFIR is term used for dataplain packet forwarding. BFER: Bit Forwarding Egress Router. A router that participates in Bit Index Forwarding as leaf. Each BFER must be a BFR. Each BFER must have a valid BFR-id assigned. BFER is term used for dataplain packet forwarding. BBR: BIER Boundary router. The router between the LDP domain and BIER domain. IBBR: Ingress BIER Boundary Router. The ingress router from signaling point of view. It maintains mLDP adjacency toward the LDP domain and determines if the mLDP FEC needs to be signaled across the BIER domain via Targeted LDP. EBBR: Egress BIER Boundary Router. The egress router in BIER domain from signaling point of view. It terminates the targeted ldp signaling through BIER domain. It also keeps track of all IBBRs that are part of this P2MP tree Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table. BIER sub-domain: A further distinction within a BIER domain identified by its unique sub-domain identifier. A BIER sub-domain can support multiple BitString Lengths. BFR-ID. An optional, unique identifier for a BFR within a BIER sub-domain. All BFERs and BFIRs need to be assigned a BFR-ID. 3. mLDP Signaling Through BIER domain bbr bbr |---LDP Domain--|-----BIER domain-----|---LDP domain--| S--( A )-----------( B ) ---- ( C ) ---- ( D )-----------( E )--h ebbr ibbr Sig <----MLDP------|<----targeted LDP----|<---MLDP------ (new) bfir bfer ------------->|--------BIER-------->|-------------> Datapatah (new) Figure 1: BIER boundry router As per figure 1, point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to- multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs established via mLDP [RFC6388] can be signaled through a bier domain via Targeted LDP sessions. This procedure is explained in [RFC7060] (Using LDP Multipoint Extension on Targeted LDP Sessions). This documents provides details and defines some needed procedures. . 3.1. Ingress BBR procedure The Ingress BBR (IBBR) is connected to the mLDP domain on downstream and a bier domain on the upstream. To connect the LDP domains via BIER domain, IBBR needs to establish a targeted LDP session with EBBR closest to the root of the P2MP or MP2MP LSP. To do so IBBR will Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 follow procedures in [RFC7060] in particular the section "6. targeted mLDP with Multicast Tunneling". The target LDP session can be established manually via configuration or via automated mechanism. 3.1.1. Automatic tLDP session Creation tLDP session can be signaled automatically from every IBBR to the appropriate EBBR. When mLDP FEC arrives to IBBR from LDP domain, IBBR can automatically start a tLDP Session to the EBBR closest to the Root node. Both IBBR and EBBR should be in auto-discovery mode and react to the arriving tLDP Signaling packets (i.e. targeted hellos, keep- alives etc...) to establish the session automatically. The Root node address in the mLDP FEC can be used to find the EBBR. To identify the EBBR same procedures as [RFC7060] section 2.1 can be used or the procedures as explained in the [draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling] appendix A. 3.1.2. ECMP Method on IBBR If IBBR finds multiple equal cost EBBRs on the path to the Root, it can use a vendor specific algorithm to choose between the EBBRs. These algorithms are beyond the scope of this draft. As an example the IBBR can use the smallest EBBR IP address to establish its mLDP signaling to. 3.2. Egress BBR procedure The Egress BBR (EBBR) is connected to the upstream mLDP domain. The EBBR should accept the tLDP session generated form IBBR. It should assign a unique "upstream assigned label" for each arriving FEC generated by IBBRs. The EBBR should follow the [RFC7060] procedures with following modifications: o The label assigned by EBBR cannot be Implicit Null. This is to ensure that identity of each p2mp and/or mp2mp tunnel in BIER domain is uniquely distinguished. o The label can be assigned from a domain-wide Common Block (DCB) [draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label] o The Interface ID TLV, as per [RFC6389] should includes a new BIER sub-domain sub- tlv (type TBD) Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 The EBBR will also generate a new label and FEC toward the ROOT on the LDP domain. The EBBR Should stitch this generate label with the "upstream assigned label" to complete the P2MP or MP2MP LSP. With same token the EBBR should track all the arriving FECs and the IBBRs that are generating these FECs. EBBR will use this information to build the bier header for each set of common FEC arriving from the IBBRs. 3.2.1. IBBR procedure for arriving upstream assigned label Upon receiving the "upstream assigned label", IBBR should create its own stitching instruction between the "upstream assigned label" and the down stream signaled label. 4. Datapath Forwarding 4.1. Datapath traffic flow On BFIR when the MPLS label for P2MP/MP2MP LSP arrives from upstream, a lookup in ILM table is done and the label is swapped with tLDP upstream assigned label. The BFIR will note all the BFERs that are interested in specific P2MP/MP2MP LSP (as per section 3.2). BFIR will put the corresponding BIER header with bit index set for all IBBRs interested in this stream. BFIR will set the BIERHeader.Proto = MPLS and will forward the BIER packet into BIER domain. In the BIER domain normal BIER forwarding procedure will be done, as per [RFC8279] The BFERs will receive the BIER packet, will look at the protocol of BIER header (MPLS). BFER will remove the BIER header and will do a lookup in the ILM table for the upstream assigned label and perform its corresponding action. It should be noted that these procedures are also valid if BFIR is the ILER and/or BFER is the ELER as per [RFC7060] 5. Recursive FEC The above procedures also will work with a recursive FEC [RFC6512]. The root used to determine the EBBR is the outer FECs root. The entire recursive FEC needs to be preserve when it is forwarded via tLDP and the label request. Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 6. IANA Consideration 1. A new BIER sub-domain sub- tlv for the interface ID TLV to be assigned by IANA 7. Security Considerations TBD 8. Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Authors would like to acknowledge Jingrong Xie for his comments and help on this draft. 9. Informative References [draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label] "Z. Zhang, E. Rosen, W.Lin, Z. Li, I. Wijnands " MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels"", February 2012. [draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling] "H.Bidgoli, F. Xu, J. Kotalwar, IJ. Wijnands, M. Mishra, Z. Zhang "PIM Signaling Through BIER Core"", February 2012. [RFC6388] "IJ. Wijnands, I. Minei, K. Kompella, B. Thomas "LDP Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP"", Novermber 2011. [RFC6389] "R. Aggarwal, JL. Le Roux "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP"", November 2011. [RFC6512] "IJ. Wijnands, E. Rosen, M. Napierala, N. Leymann "Using Multipoint LDP when the backbone has No route to the root"", February 2012. [RFC7060] "M. Napierala, E. Rosen, IJ. Winjnands "Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions"", November 2013. [RFC8279] "IJ. Wijnands, E. Rosen, A. Dolganow, T. Przygienda, S. Aldrin "Multicast using BIER"", April 2018. Authors' Addresses Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft M-LDP Signaling Through BIER Core November 2020 Hooman Bidgoli (editor) Nokia Ottawa Canada Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com Jayant Kotalwar Nokia Montain View US Email: jayant.kotalwar@nokia.com IJsbrand Wijnands Cisco System Diegem Belgium Email: ice@cisco.com Mankamana Mishra Cisco System Milpitas USA Email: mankamis@cisco.com Zhaohui Zhang Juniper Networks Boston USA Email: zzhang@juniper.com Eddie Leyton Verizon Email: Edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com Bidgoli, et al. Expires May 5, 2021 [Page 8]