Toward a standard for

multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs
Thomas Morin
France Telecom – Orange Labs

major challenges „ a use case on deploying mVPN with BGP-based mVPN procedures 2 .. „ Context „ an increased need for multicast „ demands by enterprise VPN customers „ Focus „ how to provide multicast connectivity in BGP/MPLS VPNs? „ status on solutions studied in the IETF „ applicability of the different solutions vs. Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs today..

mVPN IETF standardization history and today's situation „ History reminder „ the experimental « draft-rosen » solution has been around for a few years „ not standardized in the IETF due to a number of limitations and weaknesses „ Current status of IETF standardization „ a requirements RFC published in 2007 „ driven by operators „ working group drafts defining solutions „ framework document defining the mVPN building blocks „ multiple alternatives proposed for some of these „ first implementations 3 .

but extended)‫‏‬ „ Variants for Selective-PMSI signalling : (a selective-PMSI uses a tree in the provider backbone. Variants inside the BGP/MPLS mVPN framework [1/2] „ Variants for auto-discovery „ PIM adjacencies over a multicast ASM tunnel (only partial applicability. doesn't work for P2MP MPLS)‫‏‬ „ BGP-based auto-discovery (similar to draft-rosen MDT SAFI procedure.g. e. whose leaves are selected to match the PEs having receivers for specific customer multicast streams)‫‏‬ „ UDP-based specific protocol inside a full-mesh any-to-any tunnel (like in draft-rosen)‫‏‬ „ BGP-based S-PMSI auto-discovery „ Variants for ensuring continuity of VPN customers multicast routing „ PIM procedures inside a full-mesh any-to-any tunnel (like in draft-rosen)‫‏‬ „ new BGP-based procedures 4 .

RSVP-TE „ GRE/Multicast (like in draft-rosen)‫‏‬ „ P2P MPLS. mLDP „ P2MP MPLS w. ingress replication „ Variants for inter-AS deployments „ segmented inter-AS trees „ non-segmented inter-AS trees „ Variants for RP engineering „ PIM Rendez-Vous Point hosted in a PE VRF „ PIM Rendez-Vous Point hosted in CE or customer routers „ mixes of the above 5 . Variants inside the BGP/MPLS mVPN framework [2/2] „ Variants for customer multicast traffic encapsulation „ P2MP MPLS w.

g. ingress replication „ supporting different inter-AS or PIM RP engineering models „ Sometimes it threatens interoperability „ e. Multiple alternatives inside a « standard » ? „ Sometimes having variants is fine. and only putting flexibility where it is useful „ avoid providing alternatives covering only a subset of the required scenarios „ only provide multiple choices when there are clear requirements for them. Multicast GRE. P2MP MPLS-TE. bringing engineering flexibility for deployments: „ supporting different mVPN encapsulation techniques: P2MP MPLS. and if the underlying protocol architecture provides structure for managing the variants 6 . having different sets of control plane procedures for auto- discovery. S-PMSI signalling or customer multicast routing „ A good standardization work consists in wisely settling the foundations.

or multicast routes in VPNs increases. and shared infrastructure integrity „ Scalability : keep deployment efficient when the number of PEs. for multicast. VPNs. a level of availability and QoS comparable as for unicast 7 . Some major challenges for a multicast VPN deployment „ Key unicast VPNs strengths have to be true for multicast too: „ Security : ensuring VPN traffic isolation... „ Cost-efficient deployment and operations : avoiding too many new or different protocols. fast-convergence „ providing. building on a well standardized architecture „ Deploying a multicast VPN service should not be restricted „ allow Inter-AS deployment „ provide extranet features „ QoS.

more state in the network in most cases „ Operations „ one protocol (BGP) instead of many (BGP + UDP signalling + PIM)‫‏‬ „ all states of the system reflected as BGP routes 8 . require fully meshed tunnels. Which of the proposed alternative are expected to best address these challenges ? „ Security „ BGP-based auto-discovery provides more control „ S-PMSI UDP-based signalling is architecturally weak from a security standpoint / BGP signalling has a cleaner architecture „ the segmented inter-AS model with BGP mVPN procedures respects the security model of inter-AS option B (only ASBRs interacts)‫‏‬ „ BGP can possibly use MD5 authentication „ Scalability „ BGP mVPN procedures allow to increasingly spread the load on one or multiple Route Reflectors „ PIM LAN procedures. ie. a la draft-rosen.

one of them deployed PIM a while ago „ The question is “how to efficiently provide a multicast VPN service in this context ?” „ A possible solution „ use BGP mVPN procedures with the segmented tree inter-AS model.g. only deploy LDP extension for P2MP MPLS in AS 2 9 . keep PIM in AS 1. A use case with BGP mVPN [1/4] „ Example context „ a provider is offering BGP/MPLS VPNs across two Ass using inter-AS Option B „ the two AS have a different historical background : e.

G)‫‏‬ „ BGP mVPN eBGP procedures on ASBRs „ inter-AS auto-discovery „ for VPNs which have sites in both ASes. A use case with BGP mVPN [2/4] „ BGP mVPN iBGP procedures on PEs „ intra-AS auto-discovery. exchange labels for multiplexing VPN traffic over ASBR-ASBR links „ inter-AS VPN customer multicast routing „ informs the AS of the multicast source when there is one or more receivers across neighbor ASes. S. G)‫‏‬ 10 . S-PMSI signalling „ dissemination of information about which PEs have sites for which VPNs. for (VPNx. and the tunnels to be used for VPN traffic „ Intra-AS VPN customer multicast routing „ informs source-connected PE when there is one or more receivers across the provider core for (VPNx. S.

PIM Multicast PIM A use case with BGP mVPN [3/4] receiver Inter-AS mVPN with BGP mVPN segmented inter-AS trees Multicast customer source S PIM AS 2 VRF customer mLDP CE PIM mLDP iBGP VRF PE mLDP mVPN eBGP iBGP PIM mVPN mVPN PIM mLDP RR mLDP RR PIM ASBRs VRF PIM PIM customer PIM PIM AS 1 VRF PIM Multicast Multicast customer PIM 11 receiver receiver .

following BGP policies „ consistency. A use case with BGP mVPN [4/4] . building on experience „ but can use distinct BGP sessions and route illustration of the strengths of the mVPN BGP control plane „ choice of multicast VPN encapsulation technique can be made independently in the two ASes „ deployment flexibility is preserved „ all mVPN control plane is built with BGP. no inter-AS impact for state related to #PEs and S-PMSI „ increased scalability „ state in P routers can be further increased through aggregation „ BGP processing can be further improved using constrained BGP route redistribution 12 . to avoid touching the unicast VPN routing infrastrure „ no visibility between PEs across ASes. like for unicast inter-AS option B „ increased security „ multicast VPN routing load is spread on RRs...

. architectural strength. P2MP MPLS/MPLS-TE „ first deployments. 13 . Conclusions „ Seeing BGP/MPLS multicast VPN proposals converge toward a fully interoperable standard is key for operators „ BGP-based mVPN procedures look like the right choice „ good coverage of operators' requirements „ consistency. extensibility „ building on experience „ Next steps „ maturing the specifications „ more implementations to come „ mVPN BGP control plane..

Thank you ! .

work in progress „ "Extensions to RSVP-TE for P2MPS TE LSPs". I. IETF draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp. R. R. work in progress „ "BGP Encodings for Multicast in MPLS/BGP VPNs”. E. B. Y. Aggarwal et. Aggarwal. T. IETF RFC 4875 „ "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths". T. IETF draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast. Leymann. al.Niven-Jenkins. Rosen. Wijnands. work in progress 15 . R.. C. work in progress „ "Considerations about Multicast BGP/MPLS Standardization”. et. Kamite. Y..Morin. I. Kodeboniya. draft-morin-l3vpn- mvpn-considerations. Rekhter. R. Rosen. T. al.. IETF draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis- mcast-bgp.Morin et al.Zang.. Morin. E. References „ "Requirements for Multicast in L3 VPNs”. N. Aggarwal et al. Minei. IETF RFC 4834 „ "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs”.