Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bess WG)
Authors Zhaohui Zhang  , Robert Raszuk  , Dante Pacella  , Arkadiy Gulko 
Last updated 2021-08-20 (latest revision 2021-07-12)
Replaces draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast-controller
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
BESS                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                               R. Raszuk
Expires: January 10, 2022                        NTT Network Innovations
                                                              D. Pacella
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                A. Gulko
                                          Edward Jones Wealth Management
                                                            July 9, 2021

                Controller Based BGP Multicast Signaling
              draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-07

Abstract

   This document specifies a way that one or more centralized
   controllers can use BGP to set up multicast distribution trees
   (identified by either IP source/destination address pair, mLDP FEC,
   or SR-P2MP Tree-ID) in a network.  Since the controllers calculate
   the trees, they can use sophisticated algorithms and constraints to
   achieve traffic engineering.  The controllers directly signal dynamic
   replication state to tree nodes, leading to very simple multicast
   control plane on the tree nodes, as if they were using static routes.
   This can be used for both underlay and overlay multicast trees,
   including replacing BGP-MVPN signaling.

Requirements Language

   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.

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

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   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 January 10, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Resilience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Label Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       1.4.1.  Using a Common per-tree Label for All Routers . . . .   7
       1.4.2.  Upstream-assignment from Controller's Local Label
               Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     1.5.  Determining Root/Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       1.5.1.  PIM-SSM/Bidir or mLDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       1.5.2.  PIM ASM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.6.  Multiple Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     1.7.  SR-P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   2.  Alternative to BGP-MVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  Enhancements to TEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.1.  Any-Encapsulation Tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.2.  Load-balancing Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.3.  Receiving MPLS Label Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.1.4.  RPF Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.1.5.  Tree Label Stack sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.1.6.  Backup Tunnel sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.2.  Context Label TLV in BGP-LS Node Attribute  . . . . . . .  16
     3.3.  Replicate State Route Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     3.4.  SR P2MP Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       3.4.1.  Replication State Route for SR P2MP . . . . . . . . .  18

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

       3.4.2.  BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy  . . . . .  18
       3.4.3.  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for SR-P2MP  . . . . .  19
         3.4.3.1.  TEA with Tunnel TLVs Being Replication Branches .  19
         3.4.3.2.  TEA with a Single SR-P2MP Policy Tunnel . . . . .  20
     3.5.  Replication State Route with Label Stack for Tree
           Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Overview

1.1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast] describes a way to use BGP as a
   replacement signaling for PIM [RFC7761] or mLDP [RFC6388].  The BGP-
   based multicast signaling described there provides a mechanism for
   setting up both (s,g)/(*,g) multicast trees (as PIM does, but
   optionally with labels) and labeled (MPLS) multicast tunnels (as mLDP
   does).  Each router on a tree performs essentially the same
   procedures as it would perform if using PIM or mLDP, but all the
   inter-router signaling is done using BGP.

   These procedures allow the routers to set up a separate tree for each
   individual multicast (x,g) flow where the 'x' could be either 's' or
   '*', but they also allow the routers to set up trees that are used
   for more than one flow.  In the latter case, the trees are often
   referred to as "multicast tunnels" or "multipoint tunnels", and
   specifically in this document they are mLDP tunnels (except that they
   are set up with BGP signaling).  While it actually does not have to
   be restricted to mLDP tunnels, mLDP FEC is conveniently borrowed to
   identify the tunnel.  In the rest of the document, the term tree and
   tunnel are used interchangeably.

   The trees/tunnels are set up using the "receiver-initiated join"
   technique of PIM/mLDP, hop by hop from downstream routers towards the
   root.  The BGP messages are either sent hop by hop between downstream
   routers and their upstream neighbors, or can be reflected by Route
   Reflectors (RRs).

   As an alternative to each hop independently determining its upstream
   router and signaling upstream towards the root (following PIM/mLDP
   model), the entire tree can be calculated by a centralized

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   controller, and the signaling can be entirely done from the
   controller.  For that, some additional procedures and optimizations
   are specified in this document.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast] uses S-PMSI, Leaf, and Source Active
   Auto-Discovery (A-D) routes because the main procedures and concepts
   are borrowed from the BGP-MVPN [RFC6514].  While the same Leaf A-D
   routes can be used to signal replication state to tree nodes from
   controllers, this document introduces a new route type "Replication
   State" for the same functionality, so that familiarity with the BGP-
   MVPN concepts is not required.

   While it is outside the scope of this document, signaling from the
   controllers could be done via other means as well, like Netconf or
   any other SDN methods.

1.2.  Resilience

   Each router could establish direct BGP sessions with one or more
   controllers, or it could establish BGP sessions with RRs who in turn
   peer with controllers.  For the same tree/tunnel, each controller may
   independently calculate the tree/tunnel and signal the routers on the
   tree/tunnel using MCAST-TREE Replication State routes.  How the
   calculation is done are outside the scope of this document.

   On each router, BGP route selection rules will lead to one
   controller's route for the tree/tunnel being selected as the active
   route and used for setting up forwarding state.  As long as all the
   routers on a tree/tunnel consistently pick the same controller's
   routes for the tree/tunnel, the setup should be consistent.  If the
   tree/tunnel is labeled, different labels will be used from different
   controllers so there is no traffic loop issue even if the routers do
   not consistently select the same controlle's routes.  In the
   unlabeled case, to ensure the consistency the selection SHOULD be
   solely based on the identifier of the controller.

   Another consistency issue is when a bidirectional tree/tunnel needs
   to be re-routed.  Because this is no longer triggered hop-by-hop from
   downstream to upstream, it is possible that the upstream change
   happens before the downstream, causing traffic loop.  In the
   unlabeled case, there is no good solution (other than that the
   controller issues upstream change only after it gets acknowledgement
   from downstream).  In the labeled case, as long as a new label is
   used there should be no problem.

   Besides the traffic loop issue, there could be transient traffic loss
   before both the upstream and downstream's forwarding state are
   updated.  This could be mitigated if the upstream keep sending

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   traffic on the old path (in addition to the new path) and the
   downstream keep accepting traffic on the old path (but not on the new
   path) for some time.  It is a local matter when for the downstream to
   switch to the new path - it could be data driven (e.g., after traffic
   arrives on the new path) or timer driven.

   For each tree, multiple disjoint instances could be calculated and
   signaled for live-live protection.  Different labels are used for
   different instances, so that the leaves can differentiate incoming
   traffic on different instances.  As far as transit routers are
   concerned, the instances are just independent.  Note that the two
   instances are not expected to share common transit routers (it is
   otherwise outside the scope of this document/revision).

1.3.  Signaling

   When a router receives a Replication State route, the re-
   advertisement is blocked if a configured import RT matches the RT of
   the route, which indicates that this router is the target and
   consumer of the route hence it should not be re-advertised further.
   The routes includes the forwarding information in the form of Tunnel
   Encapsulation Attributes (TEA) [RFC9012], with enhancements specified
   in this document.

   Suppose that for a particular tree, there are two downstream routers
   D1 and D2 for a particular upstream router U.  A controller C sends
   one Replication State route to U, with the Tree Node's IP Address
   field (see Section 3.3) set to U's IP address and the TEA specifying
   both the two downstreams and its upstream (see Section 3.1.4).  In
   this case, the Originating Router's Address field of the Replication
   State route is set to the controller's address.  Note that for a TEA
   attached to a unicast NLRI, only one of the tunnels in a TEA is used
   for forwarding a particular packet, while all the tunnels in a TEA
   are used to reach multiple endpoints when it is attached to a
   multicast NLRI.

   Notice that, in case of labeled trees, the (x,g), mLDP FEC, or SR-
   P2MP tree identification (Section 1.7) signaling is actually not
   needed to transit routers but only needed to tunnel root/leaves.
   However, for consistency among the root/leaf/transit nodes, and for
   consistency with the hop-by-hop signaling, the same signaling (with
   tree identification encoded in the NLRI) is used to all routers.

   Nonetheless, a new NLRI route type is defined to encode label/SID
   instead of tree identification in the NLRI, for scenarios where there
   is really no need to signal tree identification, e.g. as described in
   Section 2.  On a tunnel root, the tree's binding SID can be encoded
   in the NLRI.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   For a tree node to acknowledge to the controller that it has received
   the signaling and installed corresponding forwarding state, it
   advertises a corresponding Replication State route, with the
   Originating Router's IP Address set to itself and with a Route Target
   to match the controller.  For comparison, the tree signaling
   Replication State route from the controller has the Originating
   Router's IP Address set to the controller and the Route Target
   matching the tree node.  The two Replication State routes (for
   controller to signal to a tree node and for a tree node to
   acknowledge back) differ only in those two aspects.

   With the acknowledgement Replication State routes, the controller
   knows if tree setup is complete.  The information can be used for
   many purposes, e.g.  the controller may instruct the ingress to start
   forwarding traffic onto a tree only after it knows that the tree
   setup has completed.

1.4.  Label Allocation

   In the case of labeled multicast signaled hop by hop towards the
   root, whether it's (x,g) multicast or "mLDP" tunnel, labels are
   assigned by a downstream router and advertised to its upstream router
   (from traffic direction point of view).  In the case of controller
   based signaling, routers do not originate tree join routes anymore,
   so the controllers have to assign labels on behalf of routers, and
   there are three options for label assignment:

   o  From each router's SRLB that the controller learns

   o  From the common SRGB that the controller learns

   o  From the controller's local label space

   Assignment from each router's SRLB is no different from each router
   assigning labels from its own local label space in the hop-by-hop
   signaling case.  The assignments for one router is independent of
   assignments for another router, even for the same tree.

   Assignment from the controller's local label space is upstream-
   assigned [RFC5331].  It is used if the controller does not learn the
   common SRGB or each router's SRLB.  Assignment from the SRGB
   [RFC8402] is only meaningful if all SRGBs are the same and a single
   common label is used for all the routers on a tree in case of
   unidirectional tree/tunnel (Section 1.4.1).  Otherwise, assignment
   from SRLB is preferred.

   The choice of which of the options to use depends on many factors.
   An operator may want to use a single common label per tree for ease

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   of monitoring and debugging, but that requires explicit RPF checking
   and either common SRGB or upstream assigned labels, which may not be
   supported due to either the software or hardware limitations (e.g.
   label imposition/disposition limits).  In an SR network, assignment
   from the common SRGB if it's required to use a single common label
   per unidirectional tree, or otherwise assignment from SRLB is a good
   choice because it does not require support for context label spaces.

1.4.1.  Using a Common per-tree Label for All Routers

   MPLS labels only have local significance.  For an LSP that goes
   through a series of routers, each router allocates a label
   independently and it swaps the incoming label (that it advertised to
   its upstream) to an outgoing label (that it received from its
   downstream) when it forwards a labeled packet.  Even if the incoming
   and outgoing labels happen to be the same on a particular router,
   that is just incidental.

   With Segment Routing, it is becoming a common practice that all
   routers use the same SRGB so that a SID maps to the same label on all
   routers.  This makes it easier for operators to monitor and debug
   their network.  The same concept applies to multicast trees as well -
   a common per-tree label can be used for a router to receive traffic
   from its upstream neighbor and replicate traffic to all its
   downstream neighbor.

   However, a common per-tree label can only be used for unidirectional
   trees.  Additionally, unless the entire tree is updated for every
   tree node to use a new common per-tree label with any change in the
   tree (no matter how small and local the change is), it requires each
   router to do explicit RPF check, so that only packets from its
   expected upstream neighbor are accepted.  Otherwise, traffic loop may
   form during topology changes, because the forwarding state update is
   no longer ordered.

   Traditionally, p2mp mpls forwarding does not require explicit RPF
   check as a downstream router advertises a label only to its upstream
   router and all traffic with that incoming label is presumed to be
   from the upstream router and accepted.  When a downstream router
   switches to a different upstream router a different label will be
   advertised, so it can determine if traffic is from its expected
   upstream neighbor purely based on the label.  Now with a single
   common label used for all routers on a tree to send and receive
   traffic with, a router can no longer determine if the traffic is from
   its expected neighbor just based on that common tree label.
   Therefore, explicit RPF check is needed.  Instead of interface based
   RPF checking as in PIM case, neighbor based RPF checking is used - a
   label identifying the upstream neighbor precedes the common tree

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   label and the receiving router checks if that preceding neighbor
   label matches its expected upstream neighbor.  Notice that this is
   similar to what's described in Section "9.1.1 Discarding Packets from
   Wrong PE" of RFC 6513 (an egress PE discards traffic sent from a
   wrong ingress PE).  The only difference is one is used for label
   based forwarding and the other is used for (s,g) based forwarding.
   [note: for bidirectional trees, we may be able to use two labels per
   tree - one for upstream traffic and one for downstream traffic.  This
   needs further verification].

   Both the common per-tree label and the neighbor label are allocated
   either from the common SRGB or from the controller's local label
   space.  In the latter case, an additional label identifying the
   controller's label space is needed, as described in the following
   section.

1.4.2.  Upstream-assignment from Controller's Local Label Space

   In this case in the multicast packet's label stack the tree label and
   upstream neighbor label (if used in case of single common-label per
   tree) are preceded by a downstream-assigned "context label".  The
   context label identifies a context-specific label space (the
   controller's local label space), and the upstream-assigned label that
   follows it is looked up in that space.

   This specification requires that, in case of upstream-assignment from
   a controller's local label space, each router D to assign,
   corresponding to each controller C, a context label that identifies
   the upstream-assigned label space used by that controller.  This
   label, call it Lc-D, is communicated by D to C via BGP-LS [RFC 7752].

   Suppose a controller is setting up unidirectional tree T.  It assigns
   that tree the label Lt, and assigns label Lu to identify router U
   which is the upstream of router D on tree T.  C needs to tell U: "to
   send a packet on the given tree/tunnel, one of the things you have to
   do is push Lt onto the packet's label stack, then push Lu, then push
   Lc-D onto the packet's label stack, then unicast the packet to D".
   Controller C also needs to inform router D of the correspondence
   between <Lc-D, Lu, Lt> and tree T.

   To achieve that, when C sends a Replication State route, for each
   tunnel in the TEA, it may include a label stack Sub-TLV [RFC9012],
   with the outer label being the context label Lc-D (received by the
   controller from the corresponding downstream), the next label being
   the upstream neighbor label Lu, and the inner label being the label
   Lt assigned by the controller for the tree.  The router receiving the
   route will use the label stacks to send traffic to its downstreams.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   For C to signal the expected label stack for D to receive traffic
   with, we overload a tunnel TLV in the TEA of the Replication State
   route sent to D - if the tunnel TLV has a RPF sub-TLV
   (Section 3.1.4), then it indicates that this is actually for
   receiving traffic from the upstream.

1.5.  Determining Root/Leaves

   For the controller to calculate a tree, it needs to determine the
   root and leaves of the tree.  This may be based on provisioning
   (static or dynamically programmed), or based on BGP signaling as
   described in the following two sections.

   In both of the following cases, the BGP updates are targeted at the
   controller, via an address specific Route Target with Global
   Administration Field set to the controller's address and the Local
   Administration Field set to 0.

1.5.1.  PIM-SSM/Bidir or mLDP

   In this case, the PIM Last Hop Routers (LHRs) with interested
   receivers or mLDP tunnel leaves encode a Leaf A-D route
   ([I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast]) with the Upstream Router's IP Address
   field set to the controller's address and the Originating Router's IP
   Address set to the address of the LHR or the P2MP tunnel leaf.  The
   encoded PIM SSM source or mLDP FEC provides root information and the
   Originating Router's IP Address provides leaf information.

1.5.2.  PIM ASM

   In this case, the First Hop Routers (FHRs) originate Source Active
   routes which provides root information, and the LHRs originate Leaf
   A-D routes, encoded as in the PIM-SSM case except that it is (*,G)
   instead of (S,G).  The Leaf A-D routes provide leaf information.

1.6.  Multiple Domains

   An end to end multicast tree may span multiple routing domains, and
   the setup of the tree in each domain may be done differently as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].  This section discusses a
   few aspects specific to controller signaling.

   Consider two adjacent domains each with its own controller in the
   following configuration where router B is an upstream node of C for a
   multicast tree:

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

                            |
                  domain 1  |  domain 2
                            |
                   ctrlr1   |   ctrlr2
                     /\     |     /\
                    /  \    |    /  \
                   /    \   |   /    \
                  A--...-B--|--C--...-D
                            |

   In the case of native (un-labeled) IP multicast, nothing special is
   needed.  Controller 1 signals B to send traffic out of B-C link while
   Controller 2 signals C to accept traffic on the B-C link.

   In the case of labeled IP multicast or mLDP tunnel, the controllers
   may be able to coordinate their actions such that Controller 1
   signals B to send traffic out of B-C link with label X while
   Controller 2 signals C to accept traffic with the same label X on the
   B-C link.  If the coordination is not possible, then C needs to use
   hop-by-hop BGP signaling to signal towards B, as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast].

   The configuration could also be as following, where router B borders
   both domain 1 and domain 2 and is controlled by both controllers:

                          |
                 domain 1 | domain 2
                          |
                   ctrlr1 | ctrlr2
                     /\   |   /\
                    /  \  |  /  \
                   /    \ | /    \
                  /      \|/      \
                 A--...---B--...---C
                          |

   As discussed in Section 1.2, when B receives signaling from both
   Controller 1 and Controller 2, only one of the routes would be
   selected as the best route and used for programming the forwarding
   state of the corresponding segment.  For B to stitch the two segments
   together, it is expected for B to know by provisioning that it is a
   border router so that B will look for the other segment (represented
   by the signaling from the other controller) and stitch the two
   together.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

1.7.  SR-P2MP

   [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] describes an architecture to construct
   a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tree to deliver Multi-point services in
   a Segment Routing domain.  An SR P2MP tree is constructed by
   stitching together a set of Replication Segments that are specified
   in [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment].  An SR Point-to-
   Multipoint (SR P2MP) Policy is used to define and instantiate a P2MP
   tree which is computed by a controller.

   An SR P2MP tree is no different from an mLDP tunnel in MPLS
   forwarding plane.  The difference is in control plane - instead of
   hop-by-hop mLDP signaling from leaves towards the root, to set up SR
   P2MP trees controllers program forwarding state (referred to as
   Replication Segments) to the root, leaves, and intermediate
   replication points using Netconf, PCEP, BGP or any other reasonable
   signaling/programming methods.

   Procedures in this document can be used for controllers to set up SR
   P2MP trees with just an additional SR P2MP tree type and
   corresponding tree identification in the Replication State route.

   If/once the SR Replication Segment is extended to bi-redirectional,
   and SR MP2MP is introduced, the same procedures in this document
   would apply to SR MP2MP as well.

2.  Alternative to BGP-MVPN

   Multicast with BGP signaling from controllers can be an alternative
   to BGP-MVPN [RFC6514].  It is an attractive option especially when
   the controller can easily determine the source and leaf information.

   With BGP-MVPN, distributed signaling is used for the following:

   o  Egress PEs advertise C-multicast (Type-6/7) Auto-Discovery (A-D)
      routes to join C-multicast trees at the overlay (PE-PE).

   o  In case of ASM, ingress PEs advertise Source Active (Type-5) A-D
      routes to signal sources so that egress PEs can establish Shortest
      Path Trees (SPT).

   o  PEs advertise I/S-PMSI (Type-1/2/3) A-D routes to signal the
      binding of overlay/customer traffic to underlay/provider tunnels.
      For some types of tunnels, Leaf (Type-4) A-D routes are advertised
      by egress PEs in response to I/S-PMSI A-D routes to join the
      tunnels.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   Based on the above signaled information, an ingress PE builds
   forwarding state to forward traffic arriving on the PE-CE interface
   to the provider tunnel (and local interfaces if there are local
   downstream receivers), and an egress PE builds forwarding state to
   forward traffic arriving on a provider tunnel to local interfaces
   with downstream receivers.

   Notice that multicast with BGP signaling from controllers essentially
   programs "static" forwarding state onto multicast tree nodes.  As
   long as a controller can determine how a C-multicast flow should be
   forwarded on ingress/egress PEs, it can signal to the ingress/egress
   PEs using the procedures in this document to set up forwarding state,
   removing the need of the above-mentioned distributed signaling and
   processing.

   For the controller to learn the egress PEs for a C-multicast tree (so
   that it can set up or find a corresponding provider tunnel), the
   egress PEs advertise MCAST-TREE Leaf A-D routes (Section 1.5.1)
   towards the controller to signal its desire to join C-multicast
   trees, each with an appropriate RD and an extended community derived
   from the Route Target for the VPN
   ([I-D.zzhang-idr-rt-derived-community]) so that the controller knows
   which VPN it is for.  The controller then advertises corresponding
   MCAST-TREE Replication State routes to set up C-multicast forwarding
   state on ingress and egress PEs.  To encode the provider tunnel
   information in the MCAST-TREE Replication State route for an ingress
   PE, the TEA can explicitly list all replication branches of the
   tunnel, or just just the binding SID for the provider tunnel in the
   form of Segment List tunnel type, if the tunnel has a binding SID.

   The Replication State route may also have a PMSI Tunnel Attribute
   (PTA) attached to specify the provider tunnel while the TEA specifies
   the local PE-CE interfaces where traffic need to be sent out.  This
   not only allows provider tunnel without a binding SID (e.g., in a
   non-SR network) to be specified without explicitly listing its
   replication branches, but also allows the service controller for MVPN
   overlay state to be independent of provider tunnel setup (which could
   be from a different transport controller or even without a
   controller).

   However, notice that if the service controller and transport
   controller are different, then the service controller needs to signal
   the transport controller the tree information: identification, set of
   leaves, and applicable constraints.  While this can be achieved (see
   Section 1.5.1), it is easier for the service and transport controller
   to be the same.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   Depending on local policy, a PE may add PE-CE interfaces to its
   replication state based on local signaling (e.g., IGMP/PIM) instead
   of completely relying on signaling from controllers.

   If dynamic switching between inclusive and selective tunnels based on
   data rate is needed, the ingress PE can advertise/withdraw S-PMSI
   routes targeted only at the controllers, without PMSI Tunnel
   Attribute attached.  The controller then updates relevant MCAST-TREE
   Replication State routes to update C-multicast forwarding states on
   PEs to switch to a new tunnel.

3.  Specification

3.1.  Enhancements to TEA

   This document specifies two new Tunnel Types and four new sub-TLVs.
   The type codes will be assigned by IANA from the "BGP Tunnel
   Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types".

3.1.1.  Any-Encapsulation Tunnel

   When a multicast packet needs to be sent from an upstream node to a
   downstream node, it may not matter how it is sent - natively when the
   two nodes are directly connected or tunneled otherwise.  In case of
   tunneling, it may not matter what kind of tunnel is used - MPLS, GRE,
   IPinIP, or whatever.

   To support this, an "Any-Encapsulation" tunnel type of value 20 is
   defined.  This tunnel MAY have a Tunnel Endpoint and other Sub-TLVs.
   The Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV specifies an IP address, which could be
   any of the following:

   o  An interface's local address - when a packet needs to sent out of
      the corresponding interface natively.  On a LAN multicast MAC
      address MUST be used.

   o  A directly connected neighbor's interface address - when a packet
      needs to unicast to the address natively.

   o  An address that is not directly connected - when a packet needs to
      be tunneled to the address (any tunnel type/instance can be used).

3.1.2.  Load-balancing Tunnel

   Consider that a multicast packet needs to be sent to a downstream
   node, which could be reached via four paths P1~P4.  If it does not
   matter which of path is taken, an "Any-Encapsulation" tunnel with the
   Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV specifying the downstream node's loopback

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   address works well.  If the controller wants to specify that only
   P1~P2 should be used, then a "Load-balancing" tunnel needs to be
   used, listing P1 and P2 as member tunnels of the "Load-balancing"
   tunnel.

   A load-balancing tunnel has one "Member Tunnels" Sub-TLV defined in
   this document.  The Sub-TLV is a list of tunnels, each specifying a
   way to reach the downstream.  A packet will be sent out of one of the
   tunnels listed in the Member Tunnels Sub-TLV of the load-balancing
   tunnel.

3.1.3.  Receiving MPLS Label Stack

   While [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast] uses S-PMSI A-D routes to signal
   forwarding information for MP2MP upstream traffic, when controller
   signaling is used, a single Replication State route is used for both
   upstream and downstream traffic.  Since different upstream and
   downstream labels need to be used, a new "Receiving MPLS Label Stack"
   of type TBD is added as a tunnel sub-TLV in addition to the existing
   MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV.  Other than type difference, the two are
   the encoded the same way.

   The Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV is added to each downstream
   tunnel in the TEA of Replication State route for an MP2MP tunnel to
   specify the forwarding information for upstream traffic from the
   corresponding downstream node.  A label stack instead of a single
   label is used because of the need for neighbor based RPF check, as
   further explained in the following section.

   The Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV is also used for downstream
   traffic from the upstream for both P2MP and MP2MP, as specified
   below.

3.1.4.  RPF Sub-TLV

   The RPF sub-TLV is of type 124 allocated by IANA and has a one-octet
   length.  The length is 0 currently, but if necessary in the future,
   sub-sub-TLVs could be placed in its value part.  If the RPF sub-TLV
   appears in a tunnel, it indicates that the "tunnel" is for the
   upstream node instead of a downstream node.

   In case of MPLS, the tunnel contains an Receiving MPLS Label Stack
   sub-TLV for downstream traffic from the upstream node, and in case of
   MP2MP it also contains a regular MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV for
   upstream traffic to the upstream node.

   The inner most label in the Receiving MPLS Label Stack is the
   incoming label identifying the tree (for comparison the inner most

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   label for a regular MPLS Label Stack is the outgoing label).  If the
   Receiving MPLS Label Stack sub-TLVe has more than one labels, the
   second inner most label in the stack identifies the expected upstream
   neighbor and explicit RPF checking needs to be set up for the tree
   label accordingly.

3.1.5.  Tree Label Stack sub-TLV

   The MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV can be used to specify the complete
   label stack used to send traffic, with the stack including both a
   transport label (stack) and label(s) that identify the (tree,
   neighbor) to the downstream node.  There are cases where the
   controller only wants to specify the tree-identifying labels but
   leave the transport details to the router itself.  For example, the
   router could locally determine a transport label (stack) and combine
   with the tree-identifying labels signaled from the controller to get
   the complete outgoing label stack.

   For that purpose, a new Tree Label Stack sub-TLV of type 125 is
   defined, with a one-octet length field.  The value field contains a
   label stack with the same encoding as value part of the MPLS Label
   Stack sub-TLV, but with a different type.  A stack is specified
   because it may take up to three labels (see Section 1.4):

   o  If different nodes use different labels (allocated from the common
      SRGB or the node's SRLB) for a (tree, neighbor) tuple, only a
      single label is in the stack.  This is similar to current mLDP hop
      by hop signaling case.

   o  If different nodes use the same tree label, then an additional
      neighbor-identifying label is needed in front of the tree label.

   o  For the previous bullet, if the neighbor-identifying label is
      allocated from the controller's local label space, then an
      additional context label is needed in front of the neighbor label.

3.1.6.  Backup Tunnel sub-TLV

   The Backup Tunnel sub-TLV is used to specify the backup paths for the
   tunnel.  The length is two-octet.  The value part encodes a one-octet
   flags field and a variable length Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute.  If
   the tunnel goes down, traffic that is normally sent out of the tunnel
   is fast rerouted to the tunnels listed in the encoded TEA.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet, TBD)    |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets)      |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | P | rest of 1 Octet Flags      |
                  +--------------------------------+
                  | Backup TEA (variable length)   |
                  +--------------------------------+

   The backup tunnels can be going to the same or different nodes
   reached by the original tunnel.

   If the tunnel carries a RPF sub-TLV and a Backup Tunnel sub-TLV, then
   both traffic arriving on the original tunnel and on the tunnels
   encoded in the Backup Tunnel sub-TLV's TEA can be accepted, if the
   Parallel (P-)bit in the flags field is set.  If the P-bit is not set,
   then traffic arriving on the backup tunnel is accepted only if router
   has switched to receiving on the backup tunnel (this is the
   equivalent of PIM/mLDP MoFRR).

3.2.  Context Label TLV in BGP-LS Node Attribute

   For a router to signal the context label that it assigns for a
   controller (or any label allocator that assigns labels - from its
   local label space - that will be received by this router), a new BGP-
   LS Node Attribute TLV is defined:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               Type            |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Context Label                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            IPv4/v6 Address of Label Space Owner               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Length field implies the type of the address.  Multiple Context
   Label TLVs may be included in a Node Attribute, one for each label
   space owner.

   An as example, a controller with address 11.11.11.11 allocates label
   200 from its own label space, and router A assigns label 100 to
   identify this controller's label space.  The router includes the
   Context Label TLV (100, 11.11.11.11) in its BGP-LS Node Attribute and
   the controller instructs router B to send traffic to router A with a

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   label stack (100, 200), and router A uses label 100 to determine the
   Label FIB in which to look up label 200.

3.3.  Replicate State Route Type

   The NLRI route type for signaling from controllers to tree nodes is
   "Replication State".  The NLRI has the following format:

                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |  Route Type - Replication State   |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Length (1 octet)              |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Tree Type (1 octet)           |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |Tree Type Specific Length (1 octet)|
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   ~  Tree Identification (variable)   ~
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |    Tree Node's IP Address         |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |    Originator's IP Address        |
                   +-----------------------------------+

                         Replication State NLRI

   Notice that Replication State is just a new route type with the same
   format of Leaf A-D route except some fields are renamed:

   o  Tree Type in Replication State route matches the PMSI route type
      in Leaf A-D route

   o  Tree Node's IP Address matches the Upstream Router's IP Address of
      the PMSI route key in Leaf A-D route

   With this arrangement, IP multicast tree and mLDP tunnel can be
   signaled via Replication State routes from controllers, or via Leaf
   A-D routes either hop by hop or from controllers with maximum code
   reuse, while newer types of trees like SR-P2MP can be signaled via
   Replication State routes with maximum code reuse as well.

3.4.  SR P2MP Signaling

   An SR P2MP policy for an SR P2MP tree is identified by a (Root, Tree-
   id) tuple.  It has a set of leaves and set of Candidate Paths (CPs).
   The policy is instantiated on the root of the tree, with
   corresponding Replication Segments - identified by (Root, Tree-id,

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   Tree-Node-id) - instantiated on the tree nodes (root, leaves, and
   intermediate replication points).

3.4.1.  Replication State Route for SR P2MP

   For SR P2MP, forwarding on tree nodes state are represented as
   Replication Segments and are signaled from controllers to tree nodes
   via Replication State routes.  A Replication State route for SR P2MP
   has a Tree Type 1 and the Tree Identification includes (Route
   Distinguisher, Root ID, Tree ID), where the RD implicitly identifies
   the candidate path.

                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |   Route Type - Replication State  |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Length (1 octet)              |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |    Tree Type (1 - SR P2MP)        |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |Tree Type Specific Length (1 octet)|
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |      RD   (8 octets)              |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |  Root ID (4 or 16 octets)         |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |       Tree ID (4 octets)          |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Tree Node's IP Address        |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |  Originating Router's IP Address  |
                   +-----------------------------------+

              Replication State route for SR Replication Segment

3.4.2.  BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy

   The Replication State route for Replication Segments signaled to the
   root is also used to signal (parts of) the SR P2MP Policy - the
   policy name, the set of leaves (optional, for informational purpose),
   preference of the CP and other information are all encoded in a newly
   defined BGP Community Container (BCC)
   [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities] called SR P2MP Policy BCC.

   The SR P2MP Policy BCC has a BGP Community Container type to be
   assigned by IANA.  It is composed of a fixed 4-octet Candidate Path
   Preference value, optionally followed by TLVs.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                Candidate Path Preference                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                        TLVs (optional)                        |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               BGP Community Container for SR P2MP Policy

   One optional TLV is to enclose the following optional Atoms TLVs that
   are already defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]:

   o  An IPv4 or IPv6 Prefix list - for the set of leaves

   o  A UTF-8 string - for the policy name

   If more information for the policy are needed, more Atoms TLVs or SR
   P2MP Policy BCC specific TLVs can be defined.

   The root receives one Replication State route for each Candidate Path
   of the policy.  Only one of the routes need to, though more than one
   MAY include the above listed optional Atom TLVs in the SR P2MP Policy
   BCC.

   Alternatively, an additional route type can be used to carry policy
   information instead.  Details/decision to be specified in a future
   revision.

3.4.3.  Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for SR-P2MP

   For SR-P2MP, there are two methods of encoding forwarding information
   in the TEA, as described below.

3.4.3.1.  TEA with Tunnel TLVs Being Replication Branches

   In this method, a TEA with tunnels being replication branches as
   specified in earlier sections can be used just as in non SR-P2NP
   cases.

   Additionally, a replication branch can also be encoded as a segment
   list, with a "Segment List" tunnel type.  The tunnel has a Segment
   List sub-TLV as specified in Section 2.4.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   For a "Segment List" tunnel, the last segment in the segment list
   represents the SID of the tree.  When it is without the RPF sub-TLV,
   the previous segments in the list steer traffic to the downstream
   node, and the segment before the last one MAY also be a binding SID
   for another P2MP tunnel, meaning that the replication branch
   represented by this "Segment List" is actually a P2MP tunnel to a set
   of downstream nodes.

3.4.3.2.  TEA with a Single SR-P2MP Policy Tunnel

   Alternatively, a TEA with a single SR-P2MP Policy tunnel type similar
   to the SR Policy tunnel type can be used.  The details are specified
   in [I-D.hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy] but may be moved here depending on WG
   consensus.

3.5.  Replication State Route with Label Stack for Tree Identification

   As described in Section 1.3, tree label instead of tree
   identification could be encoded in the NLRI to identify the tree in
   the control plane as well as in the forwarding plane.  For that a new
   Tree Type of 2 is used and the Replication State route has the
   following format:

                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |    Route Type - Replication State   |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |     Length (1 octet)                |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |    Tree Type 2 (Label as Tree ID)   |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |Tree Type specific Length (1 octet)  |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |      RD   (8 octets)                |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 ~      Label Stack (variable)         ~
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |  Tree Node's IP Address             |
                 +-------------------------------------+
                 |  Originating Router's IP Address    |
                 +-------------------------------------+

          Replication State route for tree identification by label stack

   As discussed in Section 1.4.2, a label stack may have to be used to
   identify a tree in the data plane so a label stack is encoded here.
   The number of labels is derived from the Tree Type Specific Length
   field.  Each label stack entry is encoded as following:

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                Label                  |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

4.  Procedures

   Details to be added.  The general idea is described in the
   introduction section.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security risks.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the following code points:

   o  "Any-Encapsulation" tunnel type 78 from "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
      Attribute Tunnel Types" registry

   o  "RPF" sub-TLV type 124 and "Tree Label Stack" sub-TLV type 125
      from "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry

   This document makes the following additional IANA requests:

   o  Assign "Segment List" and "Load-balancing" tunnel types from the
      "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types" registry

   o  Assign "Member Tunnels" and "Receiving MPLS Label Stack" sub-TLV
      types from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs"
      registry.  The "Member Tunnels" sub-TLV has a two-octet value
      length (so the type should be in the 128-255 range), while the
      "Receiving MPLS Label Stack" sub-TLV has a one-octet value length.

   o  Assign "Context Label TLV" type from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor,
      Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry.

   o  Assign "Replication State" route type from the "BGP MCAST-TREE
      Route Types" registry.

   o  Create a "Tree Type Registry for Replication State Route", with
      the following initial assignments:

      *  1: SR-P2MP

      *  2: P2MP Tree with Label as Identification

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

      *  3: IP Multicast

      *  0x43: mLDP

   o  Assign a new BGP Community Container type "SR P2MP Policy", and to
      create an "SR P2MP Policy Community Container TLV Registry", with
      an initial entry for "TLV for Atoms".

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors Eric Rosen for his questions, suggestions, and help
   finding solutions to some issues like the neighbor based explicit RPF
   checking.  The authors also thank Lenny Giuliano, Sanoj Vivekanandan
   and IJsbrand Wijnands for their review and comments.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-bgp-multicast]
              Zhang, Z., Giuliano, L., Patel, K., Wijnands, I., Mishra,
              M., and A. Gulko, "BGP Based Multicast", draft-ietf-bess-
              bgp-multicast-03 (work in progress), January 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
              Rosen, E., Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
              Routing Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-
              te-policy-11 (work in progress), November 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities]
              Raszuk, R., Haas, J., Lange, A., Decraene, B., Amante, S.,
              and P. Jakma, "BGP Community Container Attribute", draft-
              ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05 (work in progress), July
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
              Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
              Zhang, "Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy",
              draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-02 (work in progress),
              February 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment]
              Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
              Zhang, "SR Replication Segment for Multi-point Service
              Delivery", draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-04
              (work in progress), February 2021.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   [I-D.zzhang-idr-rt-derived-community]
              Zhang, Z., "Extended Communities Derived from Route
              Targets", draft-zzhang-idr-rt-derived-community-01 (work
              in progress), March 2021.

   [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>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9012]  Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
              "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy]
              Bidgoli, H., Voyer, D., Stone, A., Parekh, R., Krier, S.,
              and A. Venkateswaran, "Advertising p2mp policies in BGP",
              draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-01 (work in progress), October
              2020.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

   [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>.

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft            bgp-mcast-controller                 July 2021

   [RFC7060]  Napierala, M., Rosen, E., and IJ. Wijnands, "Using LDP
              Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions", RFC 7060,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7060, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7060>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: zzhang@juniper.net

   Robert Raszuk
   NTT Network Innovations

   EMail: robert@raszuk.net

   Dante Pacella
   Verizon

   EMail: dante.j.pacella@verizon.com

   Arkadiy Gulko
   Edward Jones Wealth Management

   EMail: arkadiy.gulko@edwardjones.com

Zhang, et al.           Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 24]