Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover
RFC 9026

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (April 2021; No errata)
Authors Thomas Morin  , Robert Kebler  , Greg Mirsky 
Last updated 2021-04-17
Replaces draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Stephane Litkowski
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-02-26)
IESG IESG state RFC 9026 (Proposed Standard)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Martin Vigoureux
Send notices to Stephane Litkowski <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     T. Morin, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9026                                        Orange
Category: Standards Track                                 R. Kebler, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                         Juniper Networks
                                                          G. Mirsky, Ed.
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                              April 2021

                  Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover

Abstract

   This document defines Multicast Virtual Private Network (VPN)
   extensions and procedures that allow fast failover for upstream
   failures by allowing downstream Provider Edges (PEs) to consider the
   status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when selecting the Upstream PE
   for a VPN multicast flow.  The fast failover is enabled by using
   "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks"
   (RFC 8562) and the new BGP Attribute, BFD Discriminator.  Also, this
   document introduces a new BGP Community, Standby PE, extending BGP
   Multicast VPN (MVPN) routing so that a C-multicast route can be
   advertised toward a Standby Upstream PE.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026.

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.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document
     2.1.  Requirements Language
     2.2.  Terminology
     2.3.  Abbreviations
   3.  UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status
     3.1.  Determining the Status of a Tunnel
       3.1.1.  MVPN Tunnel Root Tracking
       3.1.2.  PE-P Upstream Link Status
       3.1.3.  P2MP RSVP-TE Tunnels
       3.1.4.  Leaf-Initiated P-Tunnels
       3.1.5.  (C-S,C-G) Counter Information
       3.1.6.  BFD Discriminator Attribute
       3.1.7.  BFD Discriminator per PE-CE Link
       3.1.8.  Operational Considerations for Monitoring a P-Tunnel's
               Status
   4.  Standby C-Multicast Route
     4.1.  Downstream PE Behavior
     4.2.  Upstream PE Behavior
     4.3.  Reachability Determination
     4.4.  Inter-AS
       4.4.1.  Inter-AS Procedures for Downstream PEs, ASBR Fast
               Failover
       4.4.2.  Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs
   5.  Hot Root Standby
   6.  Duplicate Packets
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  Standby PE Community
     7.2.  BFD Discriminator
     7.3.  BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the workings of
   multicast MPLS/BGP IP VPNs as described in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].

   In the context of multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs [RFC6513], it is
   desirable to provide mechanisms allowing fast recovery of
   connectivity on different types of failures.  This document addresses
   failures of elements in the provider network that are upstream of PEs
   connected to VPN sites with receivers.

   Section 3 describes local procedures allowing an egress PE (a PE
   connected to a receiver site) to take into account the status of
   P-tunnels to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a given
   (C-S,C-G).  One of the optional methods uses [RFC8562] and the new
   BGP Attribute, BFD Discriminator.  None of these methods provide a
   "fast failover" solution when used alone but can be used together
   with the mechanism described in Section 4 for a "fast failover"
   solution.

   Section 4 describes an optional BGP extension, a new Standby PE
   Community, that can speed up failover by not requiring any Multicast
   VPN (MVPN) routing message exchange at recovery time.

   Section 5 describes a "hot root standby" mechanism that can be used
   to improve failover time in MVPN.  The approach combines mechanisms
   defined in Sections 3 and 4 and has similarities with the solution
   described in [RFC7431] to improve failover times when PIM routing is
   used in a network given some topology and metric constraints.

   The procedures described in this document are optional and allow an
   operator to provide protection for multicast services in BGP/MPLS IP
   VPNs.  An operator would enable these mechanisms using a method
   discussed in Section 3 combined with the redundancy provided by a
   standby PE connected to the multicast flow source.  PEs that support
   these mechanisms would converge faster and thus provide a more stable
   multicast service.  In the case that a BGP implementation does not
   recognize or is configured not to support the extensions defined in
   this document, the implementation will continue to provide the
   multicast service, as described in [RFC6513].

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  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.

2.2.  Terminology

   The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined in
   [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].

   The term "upstream" (lower case) throughout this document refers to
   links and nodes that are upstream to a PE connected to VPN sites with
   receivers of a multicast flow.

   The term "Upstream" (capitalized) throughout this document refers to
   a PE or an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) at which (S,G) or
   (*,G) data packets enter the VPN backbone or the local AS when
   traveling through the VPN backbone.

2.3.  Abbreviations

   PMSI:       P-Multicast Service Interface

   I-PMSI:     Inclusive PMSI

   S-PMSI:     Selective PMSI

   x-PMSI:     Either an I-PMSI or an S-PMSI

   P-tunnel:   Provider-Tunnel

   UMH:        Upstream Multicast Hop

   VPN:        Virtual Private Network

   MVPN:       Multicast VPN

   RD:         Route Distinguisher

   RP:         Rendezvous Point

   NLRI:       Network Layer Reachability Information

   VRF:        VPN Routing and Forwarding Table

   MED:        Multi-Exit Discriminator

   P2MP:       Point-to-Multipoint

3.  UMH Selection Based on Tunnel Status

   Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] describes procedures used by an MVPN
   downstream PE to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a
   given (C-S,C-G).

   For a given downstream PE and a given VRF, the P-tunnel corresponding
   to a given Upstream PE for a given (C-S,C-G) state is the S-PMSI
   tunnel advertised by that Upstream PE for that (C-S,C-G) and imported
   into that VRF or, if there isn't any such S-PMSI, the I-PMSI tunnel
   advertised by that PE and imported into that VRF.

   The procedure described here is optional one, based on a downstream
   PE taking into account the status of P-tunnels rooted at each
   possible Upstream PE, for including or not including each given PE in
   the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S,C-G) state.  If it is not
   possible to determine whether a P-tunnel's current status is Up, the
   state shall be considered "not known to be Down", and it may be
   treated as if it is Up so that attempts to use the tunnel are
   acceptable.  The result is that, if a P-tunnel is Down (see
   Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not be
   considered for UMH selection.  This will result in the downstream PE
   failing over to use the next Upstream PE in the list of candidates.
   Some downstream PEs could arrive at a different conclusion regarding
   the tunnel's state because the failure impacts only a subset of
   branches.  Because of that, the procedures of Section 9.1.1 of
   [RFC6513] are applicable when using I-PMSI P-tunnels.  That document
   is a foundation for this document, and its processes all apply here.

   There are three options specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC6513] for a
   downstream PE to select an Upstream PE.

   *  The first two options select the Upstream PE from a candidate PE
      set based either on an IP address or a hashing algorithm.  When
      used together with the optional procedure of considering the
      P-tunnel status as in this document, a candidate Upstream PE is
      included in the set if it either:

      a.  advertises an x-PMSI bound to a tunnel, where the specified
          tunnel's state is not known to be Down, or,

      b.  does not advertise any x-PMSI applicable to the given
          (C-S,C-G) but has associated a VRF Route Import BGP Extended
          Community to the unicast VPN route for S.  That is necessary
          to avoid incorrectly invalidating a UMH PE that would use a
          policy where no I-PMSI is advertised for a given VRF and where
          only S-PMSIs are used.  The S-PMSI can be advertised only
          after the Upstream PE receives a C-multicast route for
          (C-S,C-G) / (C-*,C-G) to be carried over the advertised
          S-PMSI.

      If the resulting candidate set is empty, then the procedure is
      repeated without considering the P-tunnel status.

   *  The third option uses the installed UMH Route (i.e., the "best"
      route towards the C-root) as the Selected UMH Route, and its
      originating PE is the selected Upstream PE.  With the optional
      procedure of considering P-tunnel status as in this document, the
      Selected UMH Route is the best one among those whose originating
      PE's P-tunnel is not "down".  If that does not exist, the
      installed UMH Route is selected regardless of the P-tunnel status.

3.1.  Determining the Status of a Tunnel

   Different factors can be considered to determine the "status" of a
   P-tunnel and are described in the following subsections.  The
   optional procedures described in this section also handle the case
   when the downstream PEs do not all apply the same rules to define
   what the status of a P-tunnel is (please see Section 6), and some of
   them will produce a result that may be different for different
   downstream PEs.  Thus, the "status" of a P-tunnel in this section is
   not a characteristic of the tunnel in itself but is the tunnel
   status, as seen from a particular downstream PE.  Additionally, some
   of the following methods determine the ability of a downstream PE to
   receive traffic on the P-tunnel and not specifically on the status of
   the P-tunnel itself.  That could be referred to as "P-tunnel
   reception status", but for simplicity, we will use the terminology of
   P-tunnel "status" for all of these methods.

   Depending on the criteria used to determine the status of a P-tunnel,
   there may be an interaction with another resiliency mechanism used
   for the P-tunnel itself, and the UMH update may happen immediately or
   may need to be delayed.  Each particular case is covered in each
   separate subsection below.

   An implementation may support any combination of the methods
   described in this section and provide a network operator with control
   to choose which one to use in the particular deployment.

3.1.1.  MVPN Tunnel Root Tracking

   When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition to
   consider is whether the root of the tunnel, as specified in the
   x-PMSI Tunnel attribute, is reachable through unicast routing tables.
   In this case, the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when
   the reachability condition changes.

   That is similar to BGP next-hop tracking for VPN routes, except that
   the address considered is not the BGP next-hop address but the root
   address in the x-PMSI Tunnel attribute.  BGP next-hop tracking
   monitors BGP next-hop address changes in the routing table.  In
   general, when a change is detected, it performs a next-hop scan to
   find if any of the next hops in the BGP table is affected and updates
   it accordingly.

   If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes and the root address
   of a given tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop address in
   the BGP A-D Route advertising the tunnel, then checking, in unicast
   routing tables, whether the tunnel root is reachable will be
   unnecessary duplication and will thus not bring any specific benefit.

3.1.2.  PE-P Upstream Link Status

   When determining if the status of a P-tunnel is Up, a condition to
   consider is whether the last-hop link of the P-tunnel is Up.
   Conversely, if the last-hop link of the P-tunnel is Down, then this
   can be taken as an indication that the P-tunnel is Down.

   Using this method when a fast restoration mechanism (such as MPLS
   Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090]) is in place for the link requires
   careful consideration and coordination of defect detection intervals
   for the link and the tunnel.  When using multi-layer protection,
   particular consideration must be given to the interaction of defect
   detections at different network layers.  It is recommended to use
   longer detection intervals at the higher layers.  Some
   recommendations suggest using a multiplier of 3 or larger, e.g., 10
   msec detection for the link failure detection and at least 100 msec
   for the tunnel failure detection.  In many cases, it is not practical
   to use both protection methods simultaneously because uncorrelated
   timers might cause unnecessary switchovers and destabilize the
   network.

3.1.3.  P2MP RSVP-TE Tunnels

   For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is
   considered Up if the sub-LSP to this downstream PE is in the Up
   state.  The determination of whether a P2MP RSVP-TE Label Switched
   Path (LSP) is in the Up state requires Path and Resv state for the
   LSP and is based on procedures specified in [RFC4875].  As a result,
   the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the
   reachability condition changes.

   When using this method and if the signaling state for a P2MP TE LSP
   is removed (e.g., if the ingress of the P2MP TE LSP sends a PathTear
   message) or the P2MP TE LSP changes state from Up to Down as
   determined by procedures in [RFC4875], the status of the
   corresponding P-tunnel MUST be re-evaluated.  If the P-tunnel
   transitions from Up to Down state, the Upstream PE that is the
   ingress of the P-tunnel MUST NOT be considered to be a valid
   candidate UMH.

3.1.4.  Leaf-Initiated P-Tunnels

   An Upstream PE MUST be removed from the UMH candidate list for a
   given (C-S,C-G) if the P-tunnel (I-PMSI or S-PMSI) for this (S,G) is
   leaf triggered (PIM, mLDP), but for some reason, internal to the
   protocol, the upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE
   cannot be built.  As a result, the downstream PE can immediately
   update its UMH when the reachability condition changes.

3.1.5.  (C-S,C-G) Counter Information

   In cases where the downstream node can be configured so that the
   maximum inter-packet time is known for all the multicast flows mapped
   on a P-tunnel, the local traffic counter information per (C-S,C-G)
   for traffic received on this P-tunnel can be used to determine the
   status of the P-tunnel.

   When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration
   mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, a configurable timer MUST be
   set on the downstream PE to wait before updating the UMH to let the
   P-tunnel restoration mechanism execute its actions.  Determining that
   a tunnel is probably down by waiting for enough packets to fail to
   arrive as expected is a heuristic and operational matter that depends
   on the maximum inter-packet time.  A timeout of three seconds is a
   generally suitable default waiting period to ascertain that the
   tunnel is down, though other values would be needed for atypical
   conditions.

   In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with the method
   described in Section 5, no prior knowledge of the rate or maximum
   inter-packet time on the multicast streams is required; downstream
   PEs can periodically compare actual packet reception statistics on
   the two P-tunnels to determine when one of them is down.  The
   detailed specification of this mechanism is outside the scope of this
   document.

3.1.6.  BFD Discriminator Attribute

   The P-tunnel status may be derived from the status of a multipoint
   BFD session [RFC8562] whose discriminator is advertised along with an
   x-PMSI A-D Route.  A P2MP BFD session can be instantiated using a
   mechanism other than the BFD Discriminator attribute, e.g., MPLS LSP
   Ping ([MPLS-P2MP-BFD]).  The description of these methods is outside
   the scope of this document.

   This document defines the format and ways of using a new BGP
   attribute called the "BFD Discriminator" (38).  It is an optional
   transitive BGP attribute.  Thus, it is expected that an
   implementation that does not recognize or is configured not to
   support this attribute, as if the attribute was unrecognized, follows
   procedures defined for optional transitive path attributes in
   Section 5 of [RFC4271].  See Section 7.2 for more information.  The
   format of this attribute is shown in Figure 1.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    BFD Mode   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       BFD Discriminator                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                         Optional TLVs                         ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 1: Format of the BFD Discriminator Attribute

   Where:

      BFD Mode field is 1 octet long.  This specification defines P2MP
      BFD Session as value 1 (Section 7.2).

      BFD Discriminator field is 4 octets long.

      Optional TLVs is the optional variable-length field that MAY be
      used in the BFD Discriminator attribute for future extensions.
      TLVs MAY be included in a sequential or nested manner.  To allow
      for TLV nesting, it is advised to define a new TLV as a variable-
      length object.  Figure 2 presents the Optional TLV format TLV that
      consists of:

      Type:  a 1-octet-long field that characterizes the interpretation
         of the Value field (Section 7.3)

      Length:  a 1-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
         field in octets

      Value:  a variable-length field

      All multibyte fields in TLVs defined in this specification are in
      network byte order.

       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    |           Value             ...
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 2: Format of the Optional TLV

   An optional Source IP Address TLV is defined in this document.  The
   Source IP Address TLV MUST be used when the value of the BFD Mode
   field's value is P2MP BFD Session.  The BFD Discriminator attribute
   that does not include the Source IP Address TLV MUST be handled
   according to the "attribute discard" approach, as defined in
   [RFC7606].  For the Source IP Address TLV, fields are set as follows:

   *  The Type field is set to 1 (Section 7.3).

   *  The Length field is 4 for the IPv4 address family and 16 for the
      IPv6 address family.  The TLV is considered malformed if the field
      is set to any other value.

   *  The Value field contains the address associated with the
      MultipointHead of the P2MP BFD session.

   The BFD Discriminator attribute MUST be considered malformed if its
   length is smaller than 11 octets or if Optional TLVs are present but
   not well formed.  If the attribute is deemed to be malformed, the
   UPDATE message SHALL be handled using the approach of Attribute
   Discard per [RFC7606].

3.1.6.1.  Upstream PE Procedures

   To enable downstream PEs to track the P-tunnel status using a point-
   to-multipoint (P2MP) BFD session, the Upstream PE:

   *  MUST initiate the BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
      MultipointHead as described in [RFC8562];

   *  when transmitting BFD Control packets MUST set the IP destination
      address of the inner IP header to the internal loopback address
      127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 [RFC1122].  For IPv6, it MUST use the
      loopback address ::1/128 [RFC4291];

   *  MUST use the IP address included in the Source IP Address TLV of
      the BFD Discriminator attribute as the source IP address when
      transmitting BFD Control packets;

   *  MUST include the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
      Route with the value set to the My Discriminator value;

   *  MUST periodically transmit BFD Control packets over the x-PMSI
      P-tunnel after the P-tunnel is considered established.  Note that
      the methods to declare that a P-tunnel has been established are
      outside the scope of this specification.

   If the tracking of the P-tunnel by using a P2MP BFD session is
   enabled after the x-PMSI A-D Route has been already advertised, the
   x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be resent with the only change between the
   previous advertisement and the new advertisement to be the inclusion
   of the BFD Discriminator attribute.

   If the x-PMSI A-D Route is advertised with P-tunnel status tracked
   using the P2MP BFD session, and it is desired to stop tracking
   P-tunnel status using BFD, then:

   *  the x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be resent with the only change between
      the previous advertisement and the new advertisement be the
      exclusion of the BFD Discriminator attribute;

   *  the P2MP BFD session MUST be deleted.  The session MAY be deleted
      after some configurable delay, which should have a reasonable
      default.

3.1.6.2.  Downstream PE Procedures

   Upon receiving the BFD Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D
   Route, the downstream PE:

   *  MUST associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the
      P-tunnel originating from the Upstream PE and the IP address of
      the Upstream PE;

   *  MUST create a P2MP BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
      MultipointTail as described in [RFC8562];

   *  to properly demultiplex BFD session, MUST use:

      -  the IP address in the Source IP Address TLV included the BFD
         Discriminator attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route;

      -  the value of the BFD Discriminator field in the BFD
         Discriminator attribute;

      -  the x-PMSI Tunnel Identifier [RFC6514] the BFD Control packet
         was received on.

   After the state of the P2MP BFD session is up, i.e., bfd.SessionState
   == Up, the session state will then be used to track the health of the
   P-tunnel.

   According to [RFC8562], if the downstream PE receives Down or
   AdminDown in the State field of the BFD Control packet, or if the
   Detection Timer associated with the BFD session expires, the BFD
   session is down, i.e., bfd.SessionState == Down.  When the BFD
   session state is Down, then the P-tunnel associated with the BFD
   session MUST be considered down.  If the site that contains C-S is
   connected to two or more PEs, a downstream PE will select one as its
   Primary Upstream PE, while others are considered to be Standby
   Upstream PEs.  In such a scenario, when the P-tunnel is considered
   down, the downstream PE MAY initiate a switchover of the traffic from
   the Primary Upstream PE to the Standby Upstream PE only if the
   Standby Upstream PE is deemed to be in the Up state.  That MAY be
   determined from the state of a P2MP BFD session with the Standby
   Upstream PE as the MultipointHead.

   If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established when the
   downstream PE receives the new x-PMSI A-D Route with the BFD
   Discriminator attribute, the downstream PE MUST associate the value
   of the BFD Discriminator field with the P-tunnel and follow
   procedures listed above in this section if and only if the x-PMSI A-D
   Route was properly processed as per [RFC6514], and the BFD
   Discriminator attribute was validated.

   If the downstream PE's P-tunnel is already established, its state
   being monitored by the P2MP BFD session set up using the BFD
   Discriminator attribute, and both the downstream PE receives the new
   x-PMSI A-D Route without the BFD Discriminator attribute and the
   x-PMSI A-D Route was processed without any error as per the relevant
   specifications, then:

   *  The downstream PE MUST stop processing BFD Control packets for
      this P2MP BFD session;

   *  The P2MP BFD session associated with the P-tunnel MUST be deleted.
      The session MAY be deleted after some configurable delay, which
      should have a reasonable default.

   *  The downstream PE MUST NOT switch the traffic to the Standby
      Upstream PE.

3.1.7.  BFD Discriminator per PE-CE Link

   The following approach is defined in response to the detection by the
   Upstream PE of a PE-CE link failure.  Even though the provider tunnel
   is still up, it is desired for the downstream PEs to switch to a
   backup Upstream PE.  To achieve that, if the Upstream PE detects that
   its PE-CE link fails, it MUST set the bfd.LocalDiag of the P2MP BFD
   session to Concatenated Path Down or Reverse Concatenated Path Down
   (per Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]) unless it switches to a new PE-CE
   link within the time of bfd.DesiredMinTxInterval for the P2MP BFD
   session (in that case, the Upstream PE will start tracking the status
   of the new PE-CE link).  When a downstream PE receives that
   bfd.LocalDiag code, it treats it as if the tunnel itself failed and
   tries to switch to a backup PE.

3.1.8.  Operational Considerations for Monitoring a P-Tunnel's Status

   Several methods to monitor the status of a P-tunnel are described in
   Section 3.1.

   Tracking the root of an MVPN (Section 3.1.1) reveals the status of a
   P-tunnel based on the control plane information.  Because, in
   general, the MPLS data plane is not fate sharing with the control
   plane, this method might produce false-positive or false-negative
   alarms, for example, resulting in tunnels that are considered Up but
   are not able to reach the root, or ones that are declared down
   prematurely.  On the other hand, because BGP next-hop tracking is
   broadly supported and deployed, this method might be the easiest to
   deploy.

   The method described in Section 3.1.2 monitors the state of the data
   plane but only for an egress P-PE link of a P-tunnel.  As a result,
   network failures that affect upstream links might not be detected
   using this method and the MVPN convergence would be determined by the
   convergence of the BGP control plane.

   Using the state change of a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP as the trigger to re-
   evaluate the status of the P-tunnel (Section 3.1.3) relies on the
   mechanism used to monitor the state of the P2MP LSP.

   The method described in Section 3.1.4 is simple and is safe from
   causing false alarms, e.g., considering a tunnel operationally Up
   even though its data path has a defect or, conversely, declaring a
   tunnel failed when it is unaffected.  But the method applies to a
   subset of MVPNs, those that use the leaf-triggered x-PMSI tunnels.

   Though some MVPNs might be used to provide a multicast service with
   predictable inter-packet intervals (Section 3.1.5), the number of
   such cases seem limited.

   Monitoring the status of a P-tunnel using a P2MP BFD session
   (Section 3.1.6) may produce the most accurate and expedient failure
   notification of all monitoring methods discussed.  On the other hand,
   it requires careful consideration of the additional load of BFD
   sessions onto network and PE nodes.  Operators should consider the
   rate of BFD Control packets transmitted by root PEs combined with the
   number of such PEs in the network.  In addition, the number of P2MP
   BFD sessions per PE determines the amount of state information that a
   PE maintains.

4.  Standby C-Multicast Route

   The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
   that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs, though to simplify
   the description, the case of dual homing is described.  In the case
   where more than two PEs are connected to the C-S site, selection of
   the Standby PE can be performed using one of the methods of selecting
   a UMH.  Details of the selection are outside the scope of this
   document.  The procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow
   the same UMH selection procedure, as specified in [RFC6513],
   regardless of whether the PE selected based on its IP address, the
   hashing algorithm described in Section 5.1.3 of [RFC6513], or the
   Installed UMH Route.  The consistency of the UMH selection method
   used among all PEs is expected to be provided by the management
   plane.  The procedures assume that if a site of a given MVPN that
   contains C-S is dual homed to two PEs, then all the other sites of
   that MVPN would have two unicast VPN routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) to
   C-S, each with its own RD.

   As long as C-S is reachable via both PEs, a given downstream PE will
   select one of the PEs connected to C-S as its Upstream PE for C-S.
   We will refer to the other PE connected to C-S as the "Standby
   Upstream PE".  Note that if the connectivity to C-S through the
   Primary Upstream PE becomes unavailable, then the PE will select the
   Standby Upstream PE as its Upstream PE for C-S.  When the Primary PE
   later becomes available, the PE will select the Primary Upstream PE
   again as its Upstream PE.  Such behavior is referred to as
   "revertive" behavior and MUST be supported.  Non-revertive behavior
   refers to the behavior of continuing to select the backup PE as the
   UMH even after the Primary has come up.  This non-revertive behavior
   MAY also be supported by an implementation and would be enabled
   through some configuration.  Selection of the behavior, revertive or
   non-revertive, is an operational issue, but it MUST be consistent on
   all PEs in the given MVPN.  While revertive is considered the default
   behavior, there might be cases where the switchover to the standby
   tunnel does not affect other services and provides the required
   quality of service.  In this case, an operator might use non-
   revertive behavior to avoid unnecessary switchover and thus minimize
   disruption to the multicast service.

   For readability, in the following subsections, the procedures are
   described for BGP C-multicast Source Tree Join routes, but they apply
   equally to BGP C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes for the case where
   the customer RP is dual homed (substitute "C-RP" to "C-S").

4.1.  Downstream PE Behavior

   When a (downstream) PE connected to some site of an MVPN needs to
   send a C-multicast route (C-S,C-G), then following the procedures
   specified in Section 11.1 of [RFC6514], the PE sends the C-multicast
   route with an RT that identifies the Upstream PE selected by the PE
   originating the route.  As long as C-S is reachable via the Primary
   Upstream PE, the Upstream PE is the Primary Upstream PE.  If C-S is
   reachable only via the Standby Upstream PE, then the Upstream PE is
   the Standby Upstream PE.

   If C-S is reachable via both the Primary and the Standby Upstream PE,
   then in addition to sending the C-multicast route with an RT that
   identifies the Primary Upstream PE, the downstream PE also originates
   and sends a C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Standby
   Upstream PE.  The route that has the semantics of being a "standby"
   C-multicast route is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
   route", and is constructed as follows:

   *  The NLRI is constructed as the C-multicast route with an RT that
      identifies the Primary Upstream PE, except that the RD is the same
      as if the C-multicast route was built using the Standby Upstream
      PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated to the unicast VPN
      route advertised by the Standby Upstream PE for S and a Route
      Target derived from the Standby Upstream PE's UMH route's VRF RT
      Import EC);

   *  It MUST carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (0xFFFF0009); see
      Section 7.1.

   The Local Preference attribute of both the normal and the standby
   C-multicast route needs to be adjusted as follows: if a BGP peer
   receives two C-multicast routes with the same NLRI, one carrying the
   "Standby PE" community and the other one not carrying the "Standby
   PE" community, preference is given to the one not carrying the
   "Standby PE" community.  Such a situation can happen when, for
   instance, due to transient unicast routing inconsistencies or lack of
   support of the Standby PE community, two different downstream PEs
   consider different Upstream PEs to be the primary one.  In that case,
   without any precaution taken, both Upstream PEs would process a
   standby C-multicast route and possibly stop forwarding at the same
   time.  For this purpose, routes that carry the Standby PE BGP
   Community must have the LOCAL_PREF attribute set to the value lower
   than the value specified as the LOCAL_PREF attribute for the route
   that does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community.  The value of zero
   is RECOMMENDED.

   Note that when a PE advertises such a Standby C-multicast join for a
   (C-S,C-G), it MUST join the corresponding P-tunnel.

   If, at some later point, the PE determines that C-S is no longer
   reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE
   becomes the Upstream PE, and the PE resends the C-multicast route
   with the RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that now
   the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which results
   in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only difference
   between these routes being the absence of the Standby PE BGP
   Community).  The new Upstream PE must set the LOCAL_PREF attribute
   for that C-multicast route to the same value as when the Standby PE
   BGP Community was included in the advertisement.

4.2.  Upstream PE Behavior

   When a PE supporting this specification receives a C-multicast route
   for a particular (C-S,C-G) for which all of the following are true:

   *  the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a
      particular VRF on the PE;

   *  the route carries the Standby PE BGP Community; and

   *  the PE determines (via a method of failure detection that is
      outside the scope of this document) that C-S is not reachable
      through some other PE (more details are in Section 4.3),

   then the PE MAY install VRF PIM state corresponding to this Standby
   BGP C-multicast route (the result will be that a PIM Join message
   will be sent to the CE towards C-S, and that the PE will receive
   (C-S,C-G) traffic), and the PE MAY forward (C-S,C-G) traffic received
   by the PE to other PEs through a P-tunnel rooted at the PE.

   Furthermore, irrespective of whether C-S carried in that route is
   reachable through some other PE:

   a.  based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby
       BGP C-multicast route, the PE MAY install VRF PIM state
       corresponding to this BGP Source Tree Join route (the result will
       be that Join messages will be sent to the CE toward C-S, and that
       the PE will receive (C-S,C-G) traffic); and

   b.  based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby
       BGP C-multicast route, the PE MAY forward (C-S,C-G) traffic to
       other PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the reachability of
       C-S through some other PE. (note that this implies also doing
       step a.)

   Doing neither step a nor step b for a given (C-S,C-G) is called "cold
   root standby".

   Doing step a but not step b for a given (C-S,C-G) is called "warm
   root standby".

   Doing step b (which implies also doing step a) for a given (C-S,C-G)
   is called "hot root standby".

   Note that, if an Upstream PE uses an S-PMSI-only policy, it shall
   advertise an S-PMSI for a (C-S,C-G) as soon as it receives a
   C-multicast route for (C-S,C-G), normal or Standby; that is, it shall
   not wait for receiving a non-Standby C-multicast route before
   advertising the corresponding S-PMSI.

   Section 9.3.2 of [RFC6513] describes the procedures of sending a
   Source-Active A-D Route as a result of receiving the C-multicast
   route.  These procedures MUST be followed for both the normal and
   Standby C-multicast routes.

4.3.  Reachability Determination

   The Standby Upstream PE can use the following information to
   determine that C-S can or cannot be reached through the Primary
   Upstream PE:

   *  presence/absence of a unicast VPN route toward C-S

   *  supposing that the Standby Upstream PE is the egress of the tunnel
      rooted at the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE can
      determine the reachability of C-S through the Primary Upstream PE
      based on the status of this tunnel, determined thanks to the same
      criteria as the ones described in Section 3.1 (without using the
      UMH selection procedures of Section 3);

   *  other mechanisms

4.4.  Inter-AS

   If the non-segmented inter-AS approach is used, the procedures
   described in Section 4.1 through Section 4.3 can be applied.

   When MVPNs are used in an inter-AS context with the segmented inter-
   AS approach described in Section 9.2 of [RFC6514], the procedures in
   this section can be applied.

   Prerequisites for the procedures described below to be applied for a
   source of a given MVPN are:

   *  that any PE of this MVPN receives two or more Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D
      Routes advertised by the AS of the source

   *  that these Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Routes have distinct Route
      Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of Section 9.2 of
      [RFC6514]).

   As an example, these conditions will be satisfied when the source is
   dual homed to an AS that connects to the receiver AS through two ASBR
   using autoconfigured RDs.

4.4.1.  Inter-AS Procedures for Downstream PEs, ASBR Fast Failover

   The following procedure is applied by downstream PEs of an AS, for a
   source S in a remote AS.

   In additional to choosing an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route advertised
   from the AS of the source to construct a C-multicast route, as
   described in Section 11.1.3 of [RFC6514], a downstream PE will choose
   a second Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D Route advertised from the AS of the
   source and use this route to construct and advertise a Standby
   C-multicast route (C-multicast route carrying the Standby extended
   community), as described in Section 4.1.

4.4.2.  Inter-AS Procedures for ASBRs

   When an Upstream ASBR receives a C-multicast route, and at least one
   of the RTs of the route matches one of the ASBR Import RTs, the ASBR
   that supports this specification must try to locate an Inter-AS
   I-PMSI A-D Route whose RD and Source AS respectively match the RD and
   Source AS carried in the C-multicast route.  If the match is found,
   and the C-multicast route carries the Standby PE BGP Community, then
   the ASBR implementation that supports this specification MUST be
   configurable to perform as follows:

   *  If the route was received over iBGP and its LOCAL_PREF attribute
      is set to zero, then it MUST be re-advertised in eBGP with a MED
      attribute (MULTI_EXIT_DISC) set to the highest possible value
      (0xffff).

   *  If the route was received over eBGP and its MED attribute is set
      to 0xffff, then it MUST be re-advertised in iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF
      attribute set to zero.

   Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification and, when
   applied, MAY modify the above-listed behavior.

5.  Hot Root Standby

   The mechanisms defined in Sections 3 and 4 can be used together as
   follows.

   The principle is that, for a given VRF (or possibly only for a given
   (C-S,C-G)):

   *  Downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based on
      Section 4).

   *  Upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and will thus
      start forwarding traffic for a given multicast state after they
      have a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
      C-multicast route for that state (or both).

   *  A policy controls from which tunnel downstream PEs accept traffic.
      For example, the policy could be based on the status of the tunnel
      or tunnel-monitoring method (Section 3.1.5).

   Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in Sections 3 and 4 are
   for further study.

   Note that the same level of protection would be achievable with a
   simple C-multicast Source Tree Join route advertised to both the
   primary and secondary Upstream PEs (carrying, as Route Target
   extended communities, the values of the VRF Route Import Extended
   Community of each VPN route from each Upstream PE).  The advantage of
   using the Standby semantic is that, supposing that downstream PEs
   always advertise a Standby C-multicast route to the secondary
   Upstream PE, it allows to choose the protection level through a
   change of configuration on the secondary Upstream PE without
   requiring any reconfiguration of all the downstream PEs.

6.  Duplicate Packets

   Multicast VPN specifications [RFC6513] impose that a PE only forwards
   to CEs the packets coming from the expected Upstream PE (Section 9.1
   of [RFC6513]).

   We draw the reader's attention to the fact that the respect of this
   part of MVPN specifications is especially important when two distinct
   Upstream PEs are susceptible to forward the same traffic on P-tunnels
   at the same time in the steady state.  That will be the case when
   "hot root standby" mode is used (Section 5) and can also be the case
   if the procedures of Section 3 are used; likewise, it can also be the
   case when a) the rules determining the status of a tree are not the
   same on two distinct downstream PEs or b) the rule determining the
   status of a tree depends on conditions local to a PE (e.g., the PE-P
   upstream link being Up).

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  Standby PE Community

   IANA has allocated the BGP "Standby PE" community value 0xFFFF0009
   from the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities"
   registry using the First Come First Served registration policy.

7.2.  BFD Discriminator

   This document defines a new BGP optional transitive attribute called
   "BFD Discriminator".  IANA has allocated codepoint 38 in the "BGP
   Path Attributes" registry to the BFD Discriminator attribute.

   IANA has created a new "BFD Mode" subregistry in the "Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) Parameters" registry.  The registration policies, per
   [RFC8126], for this subregistry are according to Table 1.

                  +===========+=========================+
                  | Value     |          Policy         |
                  +===========+=========================+
                  | 0- 175    |       IETF Review       |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 176 - 249 | First Come First Served |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 250 - 254 |     Experimental Use    |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 255       |       IETF Review       |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+

                      Table 1: "BFD Mode" Subregistry
                           Registration Policies

   IANA has made initial assignments according to Table 2.

             +===========+==================+===============+
             | Value     |   Description    | Reference     |
             +===========+==================+===============+
             | 0         |     Reserved     | This document |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+
             | 1         | P2MP BFD Session | This document |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+
             | 2- 175    |    Unassigned    |               |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+
             | 176 - 249 |    Unassigned    |               |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+
             | 250 - 254 | Experimental Use | This document |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+
             | 255       |     Reserved     | This document |
             +-----------+------------------+---------------+

                     Table 2: "BFD Mode" Subregistry

7.3.  BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type

   IANA has created a new "BFD Discriminator Optional TLV Type"
   subregistry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
   registry.  The registration policies, per [RFC8126], for this
   subregistry are according to Table 3.

                  +===========+=========================+
                  | Value     |          Policy         |
                  +===========+=========================+
                  | 0- 175    |       IETF Review       |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 176 - 249 | First Come First Served |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 250 - 254 |     Experimental Use    |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+
                  | 255       |       IETF Review       |
                  +-----------+-------------------------+

                        Table 3: "BFD Discriminator
                       Optional TLV Type" Subregistry
                           Registration Policies

   IANA has made initial assignments according to Table 4.

             +===========+===================+===============+
             | Value     |    Description    | Reference     |
             +===========+===================+===============+
             | 0         |      Reserved     | This document |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+
             | 1         | Source IP Address | This document |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+
             | 2- 175    |     Unassigned    |               |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+
             | 176 - 249 |     Unassigned    |               |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+
             | 250 - 254 |  Experimental Use | This document |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+
             | 255       |      Reserved     | This document |
             +-----------+-------------------+---------------+

                  Table 4: "BFD Discriminator Optional TLV
                             Type" Subregistry

8.  Security Considerations

   This document describes procedures based on [RFC6513] and [RFC6514];
   hence, it shares the security considerations respectively represented
   in those specifications.

   This document uses P2MP BFD, as defined in [RFC8562], which, in turn,
   is based on [RFC5880].  Security considerations relevant to each
   protocol are discussed in the respective protocol specifications.  An
   implementation that supports this specification MUST provide a
   mechanism to limit the overall amount of capacity used by the BFD
   traffic (as the combination of the number of active P2MP BFD sessions
   and the rate of BFD Control packets to process).

   The methods described in Section 3.1 may produce false-negative state
   changes that can be the trigger for an unnecessary convergence in the
   control plane, ultimately negatively impacting the multicast service
   provided by the VPN.  An operator is expected to consider the network
   environment and use available controls of the mechanism used to
   determine the status of a P-tunnel.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7606]  Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
              Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
              RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8562]  Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
              Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
              Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
              April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [MPLS-P2MP-BFD]
              Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake 3rd, "BFD for
              Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-
              bfd-14, March 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
              mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-14>.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC7431]  Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
              Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7431>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Greg Reaume, Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang,
   Martin Vigoureux, Adrian Farrel, and Zheng (Sandy) Zhang for their
   reviews, useful comments, and helpful suggestions.

Contributors

   Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:

   Rahul Aggarwal
   Arktan

   Email: raggarwa_1@yahoo.com

   Nehal Bhau
   Cisco

   Email: NBhau@cisco.com

   Clayton Hassen
   Bell Canada
   2955 Virtual Way
   Vancouver
   Canada

   Email: Clayton.Hassen@bell.ca

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Copernicuslaan 50
   2018 Antwerp
   Belgium

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Pradeep Jain
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View,  CA 94043
   United States of America

   Email: pradeep.jain@nokia.com

   Jayant Kotalwar
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View,  CA 94043
   United States of America

   Email: Jayant.Kotalwar@nokia.com

   Praveen Muley
   Nokia
   701 East Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View,  CA 94043
   United States of America

   Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com

   Ray (Lei) Qiu
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale,  CA 94089
   United States of America

   Email: rqiu@juniper.net

   Yakov Rekhter
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale,  CA 94089
   United States of America

   Email: yakov@juniper.net

   Kanwar Singh
   Nokia
   701 E Middlefield Rd
   Mountain View,  CA 94043
   United States of America

   Email: kanwar.singh@nokia.com

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Morin (editor)
   Orange
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   22307 Lannion
   France

   Email: thomas.morin@orange.com

   Robert Kebler (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America

   Email: rkebler@juniper.net

   Greg Mirsky (editor)
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com