<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-duan-bess-simplified-mvpn-for-bier-and-ir-04"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Simplified MVPN for BIER and IR">Simplified MVPN for BIER and IR</title>

    <author fullname="Fanghong Duan" initials="F." surname="Duan">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <email>duanfanghong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Bo Song" initials="B." surname="Song">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <email>sunbird.song@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Siyu Chen" initials="S." surname="Chen">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <email>chensiyu27@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="19" month="Jul" year="2025"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>Per RFC6513 and RFC6514, seven MCAST-VPN NLRIs and relevant procedures
      are defined to build multicast forwarding tree over the service provider backbone.
      RFC8556 introduces that MVPN can use BIER as PMSI tunnel
      to perform optimal multicast forwarding. However, the complicated NLRI
      exchange and the switching from I-PMSI to S-PMSI tunnel is not necessary
      for BIER and IR tunnel. The architectural advantages of BIER and IR cannot
      be fully utilized. Therefore, a new simplified MVPN for BIER and IR
      is proposed to substitute current NLRIs exchange and procedures. This
      document would like to discuss the value of the MVPN simplification and
      provide suggestive solution.</t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>In <xref target="RFC4364"/>, IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are
      proposed to forward unicast traffic from one VPN site to another.
      Afterwards, <xref target="RFC6037"/> firstly combined
      VPN with IP Multicast and multicast forwarding tree can be built over
      the provider backbone. PIM was the only protocol to establish PMSI tunnels.
      <xref target="RFC6513"/> and <xref target="RFC6514"/> then improved
      the MVPN procedure. On the one hand, more flexible tunnel type such as P2MP and
      IR are specified. On the other hand, seven MCAST-VPN NLRIs are defined to advertise
      the information of MVPN members, tunnels, source location and join/prune messages.
      MVPN solutions usually started with instantiate inclusive PMSI to build the multicast
      distribution trees over the provider network.</t>
      
      <t>In order to optimize the bandwidth utilization of the provider backbone network,
      S-PMSI A-D Route is designed so that selective multicast can be performed when the
      traffic of (C-S,C-G) exceeds the preset threshold. Switching from I-PMSI to S-PMSI
      is an inevitable action for selective multicast when the tunnel type is mLDP or RSVP-TE.
      Because new underlay tunnel establishing procedures are necessary for these two tunnels.
      The switching results in the complicated NLRI exchanging procedures.</t>
      
      <t><xref target="RFC8556"/> introduces that MVPN can use BIER to conduct optimal
      multicast forwarding. The complicated NLRI exchanging procedures are still maintained
      while those are unnecessary for BIER and Ingress Replication Tunnel. There are several
      problems in current MVPN procedures:
      </t>

      <t><list style="letters">
          <t>Even though per-flow multicast state is not maintained in the P routers,
          ingress root PE still follows the traditional process of building multicast tunnel.
          Root PE also needs to check whether the amount of multicast flow exceeds the
          preset threshold at any time so that it can initiate the switching from I-PMSI to
          S-PMSI. The exchange of control-plane and data-plane are still very complicated.
          </t>

          <t>There are two types of NLRIs involved in the process of customer's
          routes advertisement. Besides, four types of NLRIs are leveraged to collect
          tunnel informations. The exchange of NLRIs between each router is complicated.
          </t>
        </list></t>

      <t>The architectural advantages of BIER and IR are that they can intrinsically support
      explicit tracking at the ingress PE. When LDP and RSVP-TE tunnels are deployed, new MPLS
      labels or Opaque value are assigned along each branches of the multicast tunnels when the
      S-PMSI tunnels are initialized, which means new forwarding table are constructed along each
      relevant routers. When underlay tunnel is BIER or IR, S-PMSI tunnel can directly use the same
      forwarding table of I-PMSI tunnel on each router. The only way to differentiate these two tunnels is
      explicit tracking. Inress PE use explicit tracking to specify different leaves in the multicast packet.
      Each leaf PE of BIER and IR is globally unique from the perspective of ingress PE. Therefore,
      S-PMSI tunnel can be constructed directly at first and switching from I-PMSI to S-PMSI tunnel
      will no longer needed.</t>
      
      <t>On the other hand, segment routing is widely discussed and implemented nowadays and it is
      regarded as a simplification of MPLS. SR-MPLS, SR-BIER and SR-IR are simplification of existing tunnel
      types in a sense. With SR, current MVPN architecture and NLRI exchanges seem to be too heavy.
      Under these circumstances, a light-weight architecture of MVPN needs to be considered. In that way,
      the feature of explicit tracking can also be fully utilized.
      </t>

      <t>One possible method is proposed in this document to simplify the MVPN procedure for BIER and IR.
      There would be no inclusive PMSI tunnel. Two new multicast routes and procedures are proposed
      to substitute the existing seven NLRIs.</t>
      
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined
      in<xref target="RFC6513"/>, <xref target="RFC6514"/> and <xref
      target="RFC8556"/>.</t>

      <t>For convenience of description, the abbreviations used in this
      document is listed below.</t>

      <t><list style="empty">
          <t>NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information</t>

          <t>UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop</t>

          <t>PMSI: P-Multicast Service Interface</t>

          <t>VPN: Virtual Private Network</t>

          <t>MVPN: Multicast VPN</t>

          <t>RD: Route Distinguisher</t>
          
          <t>IR: Ingress Replication</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Specification">
      <t/>

      <section title="Simplification of Type 1 and 3 NLRI">
        <t>Type 1 and 3 NLRIs may be replaced by the eligible UMH route. The
        eligible UMH route was initially introduced in [RFC6513]. It
        contains Source AS Extended Community and VRF Route Import Extended
        Community. In this document, MS-ID and BIER attributes are
        added into the eligible UMH route so that type 1 and 3 NLRIs are no
        longer needed. When the leaf PE receives the eligible UMH routes,
        it will import the unicast route into its local instance. Simultaneously,
        the MS-ID will be used to generate the correspondence between the
        MS-id and local instance. When the leaf PE receives the join or prune
        messages, it will find the multicast source or RP in the unicast
        routing-table of corresponding instance. The underlay BIER attribute
        of the unicast route will be used.</t>
        <t><figure align="left" title="New MVPN Eligible UMH Route">
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  MS-ID (4 or 16 octets)                        |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Sub-domain ID (2 octets )                     |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  BFR-ID (2 octets )                            |
       +------------------------------------------------+

]]></artwork></figure></t>
      </section>

      <section title="Simplification of Type 4, 6 and 7 NLRIs">
        <t>When leaf PE receives igmp membership report or pim join messages, it
        will check whether the sub-domain-id inside the BIER attribute of the
        unicast route is same as its local sub-domain-id. If the two IDs are same,
        leaf PE will advertise a BGP multicast route to root PE. The BGP multicast
        route is proposed in this document to replace Type 4, 6 and 7 NLRI.
        It contains RD, originator IP, source address and group address. Additionally,
        it includes one-octet field called 'Flag'. Flag is used to distinguish (C-*,C-G) Join,
        (C-S,C-G) Join and (C-S,C-G,rpt) Prune. The route also includes BIER
        sub-domain-id and BFR-id of leaf PE. The conventional Join and Prune
        of c-multicast route are substituted by the update and withdraw of this BGP
        multicast route. Moreover, Source AS Extended Community and VRF Route
        Import Extended Community are also carried by the BGP multicast route.</t>
<t><figure align="left" title="New BGP Multicast Route">
            <artwork><![CDATA[ 
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  RD (8 octets)                                 |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Source Address (4 or 16 octets, 0 to 32 / 128)|
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Group Address (4 or 16 octets, 0 to 32 / 128) |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Flag  (1 octet)                               |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Originating Router's IP Addr (4 / 16 octets)  |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  Sub-domain ID (2 octets )                     |
       +------------------------------------------------+
       |  BFR-ID (2 octets )                            |
       +------------------------------------------------+

]]></artwork></figure></t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Segmentation scenario">
      <t>Adaption about Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route has not been mentioned yet.
      We are working on solution for tunnel segmentation scenario and relevant
      solutions will be updated in later version.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Back compatibility">
      <t>Back compatibility is a significant issue and will be discussed
      in the future.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>//TODO</t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>//TODO</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>//TODO</t>

      <t/>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6513'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6514'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8556'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
      
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4364'?>
    </references>
    
    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6037'?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
