Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00.txt.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
APNOMS03 1 A Resilient Path Management for BGP/MPLS VPN Jong T. Park School of Electrical Eng. And Computer Science Kyungpook National University
Advertisements

Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 BGP based Virtual Private Multicast Service Auto-Discovery and Signaling.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 79th IETF - Beijing VPLS PE Model with E-Tree Support Yuanlong Jiang.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 80th IETF - Prague VPLS PE Model with E-Tree Support Yuanlong Jiang.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 LSP-Ping and BFD for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd- procedures-00.
March 2010IETF 77, MPLS WG1 Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs draft-rekhter-pim-sm-over-mldp-01.txt Y. Rekhter, Juniper Networks R.
MPLS VPN.
Identifying MPLS Applications
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v MPLS VPN Technology Introducing the MPLS VPN Routing Model.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs and VPLS draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-mvpn-vpls-mcast-
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 E-VPN and Data Center R. Aggarwal
Deployment of MPLS VPN in Large ISP Networks
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 BGP Diverse Paths draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-paths-dist-02 Keyur Patel.
Juniper Networks, Inc. Copyright © L2 MPLS VPNs Hector Avalos Technical Director-Southern Europe
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire Signaling and Auto-Discovery in Layer.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 MVPN Extranet First, a little background: MVPN Effort that began in 2004 culminated in the set of RFCs in 2012! (Well, really.
CS Summer 2003 Lecture 14. CS Summer 2003 MPLS VPN Architecture MPLS VPN is a collection of sites interconnected over MPLS core network. MPLS.
Multicast VPN using BIER IETF 91, Honolulu ietf
A Study of MPLS Department of Computing Science & Engineering DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY, LEICESTER, U.K. By PARMINDER SINGH KANG
MPLS And The Data Center Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting / Juniper Networks
Multicast in L3VPNs Bruce Davie 1 draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt 1. Not a draft co-author, or a multicast expert.
L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71 Global Table Multicast (GTM) Based on MVPN Protocols and Procedures draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast-01.txt Service providers.
L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71 Ingress Replication P-Tunnels in MVPN I ngress Replication has always been one of the P-tunnel technologies supported by MVPN But there’s.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs draft-to-become-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast- 00.txt.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 BGP AS AN MVPN PE-CE Protocol draft-keyupate-l3vpn-mvpn-pe-ce-00 Keyur Patel,
1 Multiprotocol Label Switching. 2 “ ” It was designed to provide a unified data-carrying service for both circuit-based clients and packet-switching.
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 BGP/MPLS IP Multicast VPNs draft-yasukawa-l3vpn-p2mp-mcast-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa (NTT) Shankar Karuna (Motorola)
L3VPN WG2014-Jul-221 Ingress Replication P-Tunnels in MVPN I ngress Replication (IR) is one of the MVPN P-tunnel technologies But there’s a lot of confusing.
© British Telecommunications plc MPLS-based multicast A Service Provider perspective Ben Niven-Jenkins Network Architect, BT
March 21, 2006L3VPN WG 1 MVPN Update New version of “bgp encoding” draft –BGP update syntax and semantics reworked to reflect current thinking –Inter-AS.
8/5/04L3VPN WG1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Finally added to charter! Base specification: draft-rosen-vpn-mcast –Four years old, with few changes –Basis.
Softwire Mesh Framework: Multicast Mingwei Xu Yong Cui CERNET, China Chris Metz, Cisco 68 th IETF Meeting, Prague March 2007.
Using BGP between PE and CE in EVPN draft-li-l2vpn-evpn-pe-ce-01 Zhenbin Li, Junlin Zhuang, Shunwan Zhuang (Huawei Technologies) IETF 90, Toronto, Canada.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-etree-02.txt A. Sajassi (Cisco), S. Samer.
1MPLS QOS 10/00 © 2000, Cisco Systems, Inc. rfc2547bis VPN Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
1 MPLS: Progress in the IETF Yakov Rekhter
IETF 68, Prague 2007 Update on “BGP-based Auto- Discovery for L1VPNs” draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery-01.txt Don Fedyk Hamid Ould-Brahim.
Inter-Area P2MP Segmented LSPs draft-raggarwa-seamless-mcast-03.txt
Base Specification for Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-2547-mvpn-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks.
Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-01.txt Bruce Davie François le Faucheur Ashok Narayanan Cisco Systems.
July 24, 2007IETF 69, L3VPN WG1 Progress on Arch Doc draft-ietf-l3vpn-mcast-2547bis-mcast-05 Areas of new work: –Clarification of upstream multicast hop.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integration- 00.txt A. Sajassi (Cisco),
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt Ali Sajassi (Cisco), Nabil Bitar.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in VPLS draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-00.txt Rahul Aggarwal.
Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast London, 89 th IETF L3VPN WG2013-Nov-71.
November 6, 2006Softwire WG Meeting1 Softwires “Mesh” Scenario Problem: –pass AF1 routing and data over the AF1-free core, –while obeying certain constraints.
December 5, 2007IETF 70 L3VPN WG1 MVPN Profiles Why do we need “profiles”? –By design, architecture provides many choices: PE-PE C-multicast routing info.
1 Copyright © 2009 Juniper Networks, Inc. E-VPN for NVO Use of Ethernet Virtual Private Network (E-VPN) as the carrier-grade control plane.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP- TE and LDP draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-
VS (Virtual Subnet) draft-xu-virtual-subnet-03 Xiaohu Xu IETF 79, Beijing.
Tunnel SAFI draft-nalawade-kapoor-tunnel- safi-03.txt SSA Attribute draft-kapoor-nalawade-idr- bgp-ssa-01.txt.
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 Bidirectional P-tunnels in MVPN Bidirectional P-tunnel: MP2MP LSP per RFC 6388 PIM MDT per RFC 5015, GRE Encapsulation Accommodated.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in VPLS draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt.
MVPN/EVPN C-Multicast/SMET Route Enhancements Zhaohui Zhang, Robert Kebler Wen Lin, Eric Rosen Juniper Networks 96 th IETF, Berlin.
Global Table Multicast with BGP-MVPN Protocol
Softwire Mesh Framework: Multicast
BGP Connector Attribute
Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPN
MVPN Update Continued work on both architecture draft and BGP-MVPN draft Seeing “light at end of tunnel” ☺ Progress since last time: Carrier’s carrier.
Daniel King, Old Dog Consulting Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting
Point-to-Multipoint Pseudo-Wire Encapsulation draft-raggarwa-pwe3-p2mp-pw-encaps-00.txt R. Aggarwal (Juniper)
Multicast Signaling using BGP
EVPN BUM Procedures Update
Multicast/BIER As A Service
Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Technologies
IS-IS VPLS for Data Center Network draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-02
Implementing Multicast
Inter-AS MVPN: Multihoming Considerations
Multicasting Unicast.
BGP Signaled Multicast
Presentation transcript:

Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00.txt and draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp- 00.txt Eric Rosen Rahul Aggarwal

2 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net MVPN Improvements  Scalability: Control plane: reduce overhead needed to maintain state Data plane: more aggregation Tunnels on per-VPN or coarser basis  Control Integration: reuse general L3VPN mechanisms?  More optimality in data plane Less aggregation, but less scalable.  Eliminate requirement for MI-PMSI-based control  More flexibility in choosing tunneling technologies  Inter-AS Architecture

3 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Tensions  Scale vs. Optimality, duh! More accepted in unicast rtg than in mcast rtg  “Known to Work” vs. “Being Invented Now”  Control: integration vs. optimization  Data vs. Control Plane Which is bottleneck??  Multicast has unpredictable demands  Dogma

4 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Non-Goals  Generic Improvements to Multicast Technology Welcome, but not our focus  Solutions for non-L3VPN environments

5 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Data Plane MI-PMSI Elimination?  Data MI-PMSI makes it easier to handle: Dense Mode Flooding-based applications Transparent when MI-PMSI is in place Require special measures otherwise E.g.:, BSR

6 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Multi-Homed Sources and Duplicate Traffic  PE3 wants via PE1, via PE2  PE4 wants via PE2, via PE1  Data from both streams travels both trees: duplicates  With MI-PMSI in control plane, PIM Asserts can be used to prevent this by forcing a “designated forwarder”  Need alternative PE1PE2 PE3PE4PE3PE4 S1, S2

7 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Eliminating Duplicates  Option 1: PE discards streams on “wrong” tree Possible, with MPLS even easy Wastes core bandwidth (trade-off)  Option 2: All PEs must choose same ingress How? no unique “best route” to S Can waste core bandwidth, increase latency  Maybe: best of both Policy to force same ingress per AS only Not to force the same ingress across ASs (prefer intra-AS path) Mandatory mechanism to force dups to be discarded

8 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Theme for BGP Work  BGP: L3VPN PE-PE signaling mechanism  Prima facie advantages of using for PE-PE multicast signaling: Uniform control plane Leverage of capabilities: constrained distribution, security, summarization, inter-AS, etc.  Scaling needs to be carefully examined  Dynamics

9 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Theme for BGP Work, 2  Don’t get carried away No need to suppress work on other options Don’t throw away “known to work” schemes  Two different functions to handle: Not new to BGP: auto-discovery for MVPNs, label distribution for m-tunnels, m-streams, binding streams to tunnels New to BGP: carrying PE-PE multicast routing, interfacing to PIM

10 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Basic BGP Interactions 1.R-state: Egress PE gets PIM J/P from CE, instantiates state: "(S,G)receivers" 2.Distribute R-state based on RTs for VPN. Design issue: mapping PIM J/Ps to updates and withdraws, not always obvious 3.S-state: many-to-one binding of R-state to P-tunnel 4.When ingress PE receives R-state, it sends PIM J/P to CE, may or may not need to create and distribute new S-state New S-state only needed for S-PMSI binding S-state distribution based on RTs for VPN

11 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net S-State Scaling, 1  How many S-states are needed? Minimum: one per VPN each VPN has a default tunnel (possibly shared with others), MPLS label not used for per-stream demux, Maximum: one per stream each stream individually bound to a tunnel, or MPLS label used for per-stream demux What is the rate of change of S-state?

12 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net S-State Scaling, 2  Distributing S-state (only for S-PMSI) Needs to be known by ingress & each egress Possible to restrict distribution: only to egresses for stream, or to all PEs in VPN. Trades off more information with latency and signaling overhead  S-states increased by multi-homing of sources, perhaps not significantly

13 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net R-State Scaling 1  This is the stuff that PIM usually handles pure PIM states rather than labels/bindings  Total # R-states: At egress PE, # streams At ingress PE, we have choices: One per stream per egress PE (“explicit tracking”) One per stream (receivers somewhere, don’t remember where)  Applies to any control protocol

14 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net R-State Scaling (Intra-AS) 2  Is explicit tracking needed? No in these cases: Default tunnels (any tunnel setup protocol) Selective tunnels set up via PIM or mLDP Yes in these cases: Selective tunnels set up via RSVP-TE “Aggregation via congruence” S-PMSIs  Should be used only when needed, as determined by head-end

15 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net R-State Scaling (Intra-AS) 3  Without explicit tracking: R-states can be regarded by BGP as “comparable” routes (NLRI design) Aggregate R-state at RR RR gets one per stream per PE, forwards one per stream

16 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net BGP MVPN Functionality Intra-AS  MVPN Auto-Discovery/Inclusive Binding Granularity of Binding one or more MVPNs to a P-tunnel (I-PMSI)  C-multicast routing information exchange among PEs Granularity of  Selective binding and switching from I-PMSI to S-PMSI One or more specific C-multicast streams, from one or more MVPNs, to a P-Tunnel

17 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net BGP MVPN Functionality Inter-AS  MVPN Auto-Discovery Aggregation of Auto-discovery information Granularity of  Inter-AS tunnels constructed by stitching intra-AS tunnels Independent P-Tunneling technology per provider  MVPN PE-PE Routing Exchange Aggregation of R-state Granularity of  Routing peerings between ASs only at ASBRs or RRs  Use RT Constrain to limit distribution of auto-discovery routes and C-multicast routes  Support of all three options for inter-AS unicast

18 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net BGP MVPN Inter-AS  MVPN that is present in N ASs would result in N inter-AS P- tunnels (one per AS, not one per PE) To improve scalability multiple intra-AS tunnel segments within an AS could be aggregated into a single intra-AS P- tunnel Uses auto-discovery routes  Inter-AS R-state is propagated by egress PE towards the source AS Propagates using the inter-AS auto-discovery routes i.e. route No flooding of R-state No R-state in the ASBR forwarding plane

19 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net BGP Extensions – MCAST VPN NLRI  Consists of RD Src PE Address C-S length, C-S C-G length, C-G MPLS labels  Used for Auto-Discovery Routes MVPN intra/inter-AS auto-discovery Intra-AS I-PMSI and S-PMSI binding Inter-AS tunnels “stitched” from intra-AS segments  Also used for C-multicast routes Intra/Inter-AS C-multicast routing information exchange

20 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Switching to S-PMSI  Driven by PE connected to C-S  Binds (C-S, C-G) to a particular P-tree P-tree may be shared with other (C-S, C-G) Sharing is not constrained by MVPN membership  Uses auto-discovery routes  Uses the same procedures as auto-discovery, except that MCAST VPN NLRI carries C-S, C-G Both for intra-AS and inter-AS