Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions
draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions
Network Working Group X.X. Xu
Internet-Draft Midea Group
Intended status: Standards Track M.C. Chen
Expires: 15 December 2023 Huawei
K.P. Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
I.W. Wijnands
Individual
A.P. Przygienda
Z. Zhang, Ed.
Juniper
13 June 2023
BGP Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-10
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is a new multicast forwarding
architecture which doesn't require an explicit tree-building protocol
and doesn't require intermediate routers to maintain any multicast
state. BIER is applicable in a multi-tenant data center network
environment for efficient delivery of Broadcast, Unknown-unicast and
Multicast (BUM) traffic while eliminating the need for maintaining a
huge amount of multicast state in the underlay. This document
describes BGP extensions for advertising the BIER-specific
information.
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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 December 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BIER Path Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. BIER Non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. BIER Nexthop sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Originating/Updating BIER Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. BIFT Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
1. Introduction
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is a new multicast
forwarding architecture which doesn't require an explicit tree-
building protocol and doesn't require intermediate routers to
maintain any multicast state. BIER is applicable in a multi-tenant
data center network environment for efficient delivery of Broadcast,
Unknown-unicast and Multicast (BUM) traffic while eliminating the
need for maintaining a huge amount of multicast state in the
underlay. This document describes BGP extensions for advertising the
BIER-specific information. More specifically, in this document, we
define a new optional, non- transitive BGP attribute, referred to as
the BIER attribute, to convey the BIER-specific information such as
BIER Forwarding Router identifier (BFR-id), BitString Length (BSL)
and so on. In addition, this document specifies procedures to
prevent the BIER attribute from "leaking out" of a BIER domain.
These extensions are applicable in those multi-tenant data centers
where BGP instead of IGP is used as an underlay [RFC7938]. These
extensions may also be applicable to other BGP based network
scenarios, e.g., as described in
[I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-as-a-service].
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC8279].
3. BIER Path Attribute
This draft defines a new optional, transitive BGP path attribute,
referred to as the BIER attribute. This attribute can be attached to
a BGP UPDATE message by the originator so as to indicate the BIER-
specific information of a particular BFR which is identified by the
/32 or /128 address prefix contained in the NLRI. In other words, if
the BIER path attribute is present, the NLRI is treated by BIER as a
"BFR-prefix". When creating a BIER attribute, a BFR needs to include
one BIER TLV for every Sub-domain that it supports. The attribute
type code for the BIER Attribute is TBD. The value field of the BIER
Attribute contains one or more BIER TLV as shown in Figure 1.
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-domain | BFR-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+..........................
Type: Two octets encoding the BIER TLV Type: TBD.
Length: Two octets encoding the length in octets of the TLV,
including the type and length fields. The length is encoded as an
unsigned binary integer. (Note that the minimum length is 8,
indicating that no sub-TLV is present.)
Sub-domain: a one-octet field encoding the sub-domain ID
corresponding to the BFR-ID.
BFR-ID: a two-octet field encoding the BFR-ID.
Sub-TLVs: contains one or more sub-TLV.
The BIER TLV MAY appear multiple times in the BIER Path Attribute,
one for each sub-domain. There MUST be no more than one BIER TLV
with the same Sub-domain value; if there is, the entire BIER Path
Attribute MUST be ignored.
A BIER TLV may have sub-TLVs, which may have their own sub-TLVs. All
those are referred to as sub-TLVs and share the same Type space,
regardless of the level.
3.1. BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
The BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV matches the OSPFv2 "BIER MPLS
Encapsulation sub-TLV" as specified in Section 2.2 of [RFC8444]. It
MAY appear multiple times in the BIER TLV.
The following is copied verbatim from that section:
The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI |BS Len | Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD1 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 4 or other values (depending on sub-TLVs)
Max SI: A 1-octet field encoding the maximum Set Identifier (SI)
(see Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this
BIER sub-domain for this BitString length.
BS Len (BitString Length): A 4-bit field encoding the supported
BitString length associated with this BFR-prefix. The values
allowed in this field are specified in Section 2 of [RFC8296].
Label: A 20-bit value representing the first label in the label range.
The "label range" is the set of labels beginning with the Label and
ending with (Label + (Max SI)). A unique label range is allocated
for each BitString length and sub-domain-id. These labels are used
for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
The size of the label range is determined by the number of SIs
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single label in the label range: the first label is for SI=0,
the second label is for SI=1, etc.
If the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the
20-bit range, the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV containing the
error MUST be ignored.
If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER MPLS
Encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER TLV, all BIER MPLS
Encapsulation Sub-TLVs in the BIER TLV MUST be ignored.
Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised
by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If an overlap is detected, all
BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised by the BFR MUST be ignored.
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
3.2. BIER Non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
Similar to the concept in [I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions],
the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV is used for non-MPLS
encapsulation. It matches the OSPFv2 BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub
TLV as specified in Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions].
The following are copied verbatim from that section. Note to RFC
Editor: the following copied text must match the final text in the
RFC for [I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions].
The non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a
single BIER TLV. If the same BitString length is repeated in
multiple BIER non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER
TLV, the BIER TLV MUST be ignored.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI |BS LEN | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD2 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 4 or other values (depending on sub-TLVs)
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id: A 20-bit field representing the first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id
range.
BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If an overlap is
detected, all the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV advertised
by the BFR MUST be ignored. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and
is allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the non-MPLS
encapsulation sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-TLV.
3.3. BIER Nexthop sub-TLV
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=TBD3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nexthop |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD3 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 4 if the Nexthop is IPv4 address and 16 if the Nexthop is
IPv6 address
Nexthop: 4 or 16 octets of IPv4/IPv6 address
The BIER Nexthop sub-TLV MAY be included in the MPLS or non-MPLS
Encapsulation sub-TLV as well as in the top level BIER TLV.
4. Originating/Updating BIER Attribute
A BIER Forwarding Egress Router (BFER) MUST attach a BIER attribute
to its own BIER prefix NLRI. The BIER attribute MUST include one
BIER TLV for each BIER sub-domain that it supports. Each BIER TLV
MUST include an MPLS and/or non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV, and
SHOULD include a BIER Nexthop sub-TLV with the Nexthop set to the
BIER prefix. If the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV is not included, the BIER
prefix will be used by receiving BFRs as the BIER nexthop when
calculating BIFT.
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
A BFR/BFER MAY attach a BIER proxy range sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-bier-prefix-redistribute] in the BIER TLV. In this case it
MUST attach a BIER attribute to its own BIER prefix NLRIs. Other
than this case, a BFR that is not a BFER (i.e., its BFR-ID is 0)
SHOULD NOT attach a BIER attribute to its own BIER prefix NLRIs (if a
BIER attribute is attached it will not get used anyway).
When a BFR re-advertises a BGP NLRI with a BIER attribute, it SHOULD
set/update the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV to use its own BIER prefix, in
which case it MUST replace the MPLS or non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV
with its own, i.e., as if the BFR is attaching the encapsulation sub-
TLV for its own BIER prefix. If it does not update the BIER Nexthop
sub-TLVs, it MUST NOT update MPLS or non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV.
It's possible that the BFR supports some but not all BSLs in the
received MPLS or non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLVs. After updating the
BIER Nexthop sub-TLV in the top BIER TLV to itself, for the BSLs that
it does support, the BFR MUST remove the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV (if
present) in the corresponding Encapsulation sub-TLVs. For the BSLs
that it does not support, it MUST not update those Encapsulation sub-
TLVs except that if a BIER Nexthop sub-TLV is not included in the
Encapsulation sub-TLV, the received BIER Nexthop sub-TLV in the top
BIER TLV MUST be copied into the Encapsulation sub-TLV. All impacted
length fields (e.g., the Encapsulation sub-TLV Length, the top level
BIER TLV Length) MUST be updated accordingly.
Since the BIER attribute is an optional, transitive BGP path
attribute, a non-BFR BGP speaker could still advertise the received
route with a BIER attribute.
5. BIFT Calculation
For each sub-domain, a BFR calculates the corresponding BIFTs by
going through the BIER prefixes whose BIER attribute includes a BIER
TLV for the sub-domain. For a non-zero BFR-id in the BIER TLV, or
for each BFR-id in the BIER Proxy Range sub-TLV in the BIER TLV of a
BIER prefix, a BIFT entry is created or updated. The entry's BFR
Neighbor (BFR-NBR) [RFC8279] is the Nexthop in the BIER Nexthop sub-
TLV in the corresponding Encapsulation sub-TLV, or in the top level
BIER TLV if the Encapsulation sub-TLV does not have a Nexthop sub-
TLV. If there is no Nexthop sub-TLV at all, The entry's BFR Neighbor
is the BIER prefix itself. The BIER label or BIFT-id for the entry
is derived from the Label Range in the MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV or
from the BIFT-id Range in the non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV.
BIER traffic is sent to the BFR-NBR either natively (BIER header
directly follows a layer 2 header) if the BFR-NBR is directly
connected, or via a tunnel otherwise. Notice that, if a non-BFR BGP
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
speaker re-advertises a BIER prefix (in this case it can not update
the BIER attribute since it is not capable), or if a BFR BGP speaker
re-advertises a BIER prefix without updating the BIER Nexthop sub-
TLV, the BFR receiving the prefix will tunnel BIER traffic - the BGP
speaker re-advertising the BIER prefix will not see the BIER traffic
for the BIER prefix.
6. Deployment Considerations
It's assumed by this document that the BIER domain is aligned with an
Administrative Domain (AD) which may be composed of multiple ASes
(either private or public ASes). Use of the BIER attribute in other
scenarios is outside the scope of this document.
A boundary router of the AD that supports the BIER attribute MUST
support a per-EBGP-session/group policy, that indicates whether the
attribute is allowed. If it is not allowed, the BIER attribute MUST
NOT be sent to any EBGP peer of the session/group, and the BIER
attribute received from the peer MUST be treated exactly as if it
were an unrecognized non-transitive attribute. That is, "it MUST be
quietly ignored and not passed along to other BGP peers".
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks a lot for Eric Rosen and Peter Psenak for their valuable
comments on this document.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a codepoint in the "BGP Path Attributes"
registry to the BIER attribute.
IANA is requested to create a registry for "BGP BIER Attribute Types"
and a registry for "BGP BIER TLV sub-TLV Types". The type field for
both registry consists of two octets, with possible values from 1 to
655355 (the value 0 is reserved). The allocation policy for this
field is to be "First Come First Serve".
Three initial values are to be allocated from the "BGP BIER TLV sub-
TLV Types" for MPLS Encapsulation, non-MPLS Encapsulation, and BIER
Nexthop sub-TLV respectively.
9. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
already specified in [RFC4271] and [RFC8279].
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
10. Contributors
This document has the following contributors:
Zheng Zhang
ZTE
zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions]
Dhanaraj, S., Yan, G., Wijnands, I., Psenak, P., Zhang, Z.
J., and J. Xie, "LSR Extensions for BIER non-MPLS
Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-bier-lsr-non-mpls-extensions-01, 19 September 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-
lsr-non-mpls-extensions-01>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-prefix-redistribute]
Zhang, Z., Wu, B., Zhang, Z. J., Wijnands, I., Liu, Y.,
and H. Bidgoli, "BIER Prefix Redistribute", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-prefix-
redistribute-04, 12 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-
prefix-redistribute-04>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
[RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-as-a-service]
Zhang, Z. J., Rosen, E. C., Awduche, D. O., Shepherd, G.,
Zhang, Z., and G. S. Mishra, "Multicast/BIER As A
Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
bier-multicast-as-a-service-02, 4 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-
multicast-as-a-service-02>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Midea Group
Email: xuxh81@midea.com
Mach Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
IJsbrand Wijnands
Individual
Email: ice@braindump.be
Antoni Przygienda
Juniper
Email: prz@juniper.net
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for BIER June 2023
Zhaohui Zhang (editor)
Juniper
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Xu, et al. Expires 15 December 2023 [Page 12]
