Opened 7 years ago

Last modified 7 years ago

#5 new enhancement

Multicast Support for L3VPN service

Reported by: bill.wu@… Owned by: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@…
Priority: minor Milestone: milestone1
Component: l3vpn-service-model Version: 2.0
Severity: Active WG Document Keywords: Multicast
Cc:

Description

Eric C Rosen commented on Multicast support for L3VPN service and believed specify the RPA in the service model is not enough
and he proposed to contain the complete set of customer group-to-rp mapping and he also proposed service model to specify who offers RP service

Stephane made a proposal based on his suggetion and share on the list for broad review and haven't recieved any feedback on the list. Therefore the proposal hasn't been incorporated into v(-01) yet.

Change History (2)

comment:1 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 7 years ago by bill.wu@…

Here is Stephane's proposed change for the multicast part :

VPN config :

| +--rw multicast
| +--rw tree-flavor* identityref
| +--rw rp
| +--rw rp-group-mapping* [rp-address group]
| | +--rw rp-address union
| | +--rw provider-managed
| | | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | | +--rw anycast-rp? boolean
| | +--rw group union
| +--rw rp-discovery? identityref


We can define a list of RP to group mapping. This is useful when :

  • Static RP is used and RP is managed by customer => provider-managed set to false
  • RP is managed by provider, if this case , we also need to know from customer if anycast RP is required. But I’m wondering if it is necessary or not, from a technical point of view yes, from an abstraction point of view, does the customer care if we use anycast RP or just RP redundancy through the discovery mechanism ? Maybe we can just rename anycast-RP to redundant-RP.

In case of provider-managed, I expect the OSS to place the RP in the provider network, maybe we need to add some constraint here also …
If the customer does anycast RP (customer managed RP), IMO, it should be transparent for the provider ?

  • Note that the proposal allows for some groups to be managed by provider and some others by customer.


Site config :

| +--rw multicast
| +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration
| +--rw multicast-transport-protocol
| | +--rw ipv4? boolean
| | +--rw ipv6? boolean
| +--rw protocol-type?


In the site config, I added the protocol-type, which refers to “host” “router” or “both”. “Host” means some hosts are connected to the provider network (so requires IGMP or MLD), “Router” means hosts are behind a customer router (so need of PIM), “both” means need to enable both IGMP/MLD and PIM.

You can also review his proposal from the following link:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/NklHSPuYTj4bnHLBWWeEVdxghi0

Replying to bill.wu@…:

Eric C Rosen commented on Multicast support for L3VPN service and believed specify the RPA in the service model is not enough
and he proposed to contain the complete set of customer group-to-rp mapping and he also proposed service model to specify who offers RP service

Stephane made a proposal based on his suggetion and share on the list for broad review and haven't recieved any feedback on the list. Therefore the proposal hasn't been incorporated into v(-01) yet.

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by bill.wu@…

  • Component changed from draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model to l3vpn-service-model
  • Milestone set to milestone1
  • Owner changed from draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@… to draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@…
  • Severity changed from - to Active WG Document
  • Version set to 2.0
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.