Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN
draft-rosen-l3vpn-ir-02

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (bess WG)
Last updated 2014-12-04 (latest revision 2014-10-15)
Replaced by draft-ietf-bess-ir
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state Adopted by a WG
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-bess-ir
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rosen-l3vpn-ir-02.txt

Abstract

RFCs 6513, 6514, and other RFCs describe procedures by which a Service Provider may offer Multicast VPN service to its customers. These procedures create point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or multipoint-to- multipoint trees across the Service Provider's backbone. One type of P2MP tree that may be used is known as an "Ingress Replication (IR) tunnel". In an IR tunnel, a parent node need not be "directly connected" to its child nodes. When a parent node has to send a multicast data packet to its child nodes, it does not use layer 2 multicast, IP multicast, or MPLS multicast to do so. Rather, it makes n individual copies, and then unicasts each copy, through an IP or MPLS unicast tunnel, to exactly one child node. While the prior MVPN specifications allow the use of IR tunnels, those specifications are not always very clear or explicit about how the MVPN protocol elements and procedures are applied to IR tunnels. This document updates RFCs 6513 and 6514 by adding additional details that are specific to the use of IR tunnels.

Authors

Eric Rosen (erosen@juniper.net)
Karthik Subramanian (kartsubr@cisco.com)
Zhaohui Zhang (zzhang@juniper.net)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)