





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8279                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Experimental                                     E. Rosen, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                   Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                             A. Dolganow
                                                                   Nokia
                                                           T. Przygienda
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               S. Aldrin
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                           November 2017


         Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)

Abstract

   This document specifies a new architecture for the forwarding of
   multicast data packets.  It provides optimal forwarding of multicast
   packets through a "multicast domain".  However, it does not require a
   protocol for explicitly building multicast distribution trees, nor
   does it require intermediate nodes to maintain any per-flow state.
   This architecture is known as "Bit Index Explicit Replication"
   (BIER).  When a multicast data packet enters the domain, the ingress
   router determines the set of egress routers to which the packet needs
   to be sent.  The ingress router then encapsulates the packet in a
   BIER header.  The BIER header contains a bit string in which each bit
   represents exactly one egress router in the domain; to forward the
   packet to a given set of egress routers, the bits corresponding to
   those routers are set in the BIER header.  The procedures for
   forwarding a packet based on its BIER header are specified in this
   document.  Elimination of the per-flow state and the explicit tree-
   building protocols results in a considerable simplification.


















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  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).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see 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/rfc8279.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.



















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
   2. The BFR Identifier and BFR-Prefix ...............................7
   3. Encoding BFR Identifiers in BitStrings ..........................8
   4. Layering .......................................................11
      4.1. The Routing Underlay ......................................11
      4.2. The BIER Layer ............................................12
      4.3. The Multicast Flow Overlay ................................13
   5. Advertising BFR-ids and BFR-Prefixes ...........................13
   6. BIER Intra-Domain Forwarding Procedures ........................15
      6.1. Overview ..................................................15
      6.2. BFR Neighbors .............................................17
      6.3. The Bit Index Routing Table ...............................18
      6.4. The Bit Index Forwarding Table ............................19
      6.5. The BIER Forwarding Procedure .............................20
      6.6. Examples of BIER Forwarding ...............................23
           6.6.1. Example 1 ..........................................23
           6.6.2. Example 2 ..........................................24
      6.7. Equal-Cost Multipath Forwarding ...........................26
           6.7.1. Non-deterministic ECMP .............................27
           6.7.2. Deterministic ECMP .................................28
      6.8. Prevention of Loops and Duplicates ........................29
      6.9. When Some Nodes Do Not Support BIER .......................30
      6.10. Use of Different BitStringLengths within a Domain ........33
           6.10.1. BitStringLength Compatibility Check ...............34
           6.10.2. Handling BitStringLength Mismatches ...............36
           6.10.3. Transitioning from One BitStringLength to
                   Another ...........................................36
   7. Operational Considerations .....................................37
      7.1. Configuration .............................................37
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................37
   9. Security Considerations ........................................38
   10. References ....................................................39
      10.1. Normative References .....................................39
      10.2. Informative References ...................................39
   Acknowledgements ..................................................40
   Contributors ......................................................41
   Authors' Addresses ................................................43












Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a new architecture for the forwarding of
   multicast data packets.  The architecture provides optimal forwarding
   of multicast data packets through a "multicast domain".  However, it
   does not require the use of a protocol for explicitly building
   multicast distribution trees, and it does not require intermediate
   nodes to maintain any per-flow state.  This architecture is known as
   "Bit Index Explicit Replication" (BIER).

   A router that supports BIER is known as a "Bit-Forwarding Router"
   (BFR).  The BIER control-plane protocols (see Section 4.2) run within
   a "BIER domain", allowing the BFRs within that domain to exchange the
   information needed for them to forward packets to each other
   using BIER.

   A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding
   Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at one or more
   "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs).  A BFR that receives a
   multicast data packet from another BFR in the same BIER domain, and
   forwards the packet to another BFR in the same BIER domain, will be
   known as a "transit BFR" for that packet.  A single BFR may be a BFIR
   for some multicast traffic while also being a BFER for some multicast
   traffic and a transit BFR for some multicast traffic.  In fact, for a
   given packet, a BFR may be a BFIR and/or a transit BFR and/or (one
   of) the BFER(s) for that packet.

   A BIER domain may contain one or more sub-domains.  Each BIER domain
   MUST contain at least one sub-domain, the "default sub-domain" (also
   denoted "sub-domain 0").  If a BIER domain contains more than one
   sub-domain, each BFR in the domain MUST be provisioned to know the
   set of sub-domains to which it belongs.  Each sub-domain is
   identified by a sub-domain-id in the range [0,255].

   For each sub-domain to which a given BFR belongs, if the BFR is
   capable of acting as a BFIR or a BFER, it MUST be provisioned with a
   "BFR-id" that is unique within the sub-domain.  A BFR-id is a small
   unstructured positive integer.  For instance, if a particular BIER
   sub-domain contains 1,374 BFRs, each one could be given a BFR-id in
   the range [1,1374].

   If a given BFR belongs to more than one sub-domain, it may (though it
   need not) have a different BFR-id for each sub-domain.

   When a multicast packet arrives from outside the domain at a BFIR,
   the BFIR determines the set of BFERs to which the packet will be
   sent.  The BFIR also determines the sub-domain in which the packet
   will be sent.  Determining the sub-domain in which a given packet



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   will be sent is known as "assigning the packet to a sub-domain".
   Procedures for choosing the sub-domain to which a particular packet
   is assigned are outside the scope of this document.  However, once a
   particular packet has been assigned to a particular sub-domain, it
   remains assigned to that sub-domain until it leaves the BIER domain.
   That is, the sub-domain to which a packet is assigned MUST NOT be
   changed while the packet is in flight through the BIER domain.

   Once the BFIR determines the sub-domain and the set of BFERs for a
   given packet, the BFIR encapsulates the packet in a "BIER header".
   The BIER header contains a bit string in which each bit represents a
   single BFR-id.  To indicate that a particular BFER is to receive a
   given packet, the BFIR sets the bit corresponding to that BFER's
   BFR-id in the sub-domain to which the packet has been assigned.  We
   will use the term "BitString" to refer to the bit string field in the
   BIER header.  We will use the term "payload" to refer to the packet
   that has been encapsulated.  Thus, a "BIER-encapsulated" packet
   consists of a "BIER header" followed by a "payload".

   The number of BFERs to which a given packet can be forwarded is
   limited only by the length of the BitString in the BIER header.
   Different deployments can use different BitString lengths.  We will
   use the term "BitStringLength" to refer to the number of bits in the
   BitString.  It is possible that some deployments will have more BFERs
   in a given sub-domain than there are bits in the BitString.  To
   accommodate this case, the BIER encapsulation includes both the
   BitString and a "Set Identifier" (SI).  It is the BitString and the
   SI together that determine the set of BFERs to which a given packet
   will be delivered:

   o  By convention, the least significant (rightmost) bit in the
      BitString is "bit 1", and the most significant (leftmost) bit is
      "bit BitStringLength".

   o  If a BIER-encapsulated packet has an SI of n and a BitString with
      bit k set, then the packet must be delivered to the BFER whose
      BFR-id (in the sub-domain to which the packet has been assigned)
      is n*BitStringLength+k.

   For example, suppose the BIER encapsulation uses a BitStringLength of
   256 bits.  By convention, the least significant (rightmost) bit is
   bit 1, and the most significant (leftmost) bit is bit 256.  Suppose
   that a given packet has been assigned to sub-domain 0 and needs to be
   delivered to three BFERs, where those BFERs have BFR-ids in
   sub-domain 0 of 13, 126, and 235, respectively.  The BFIR would
   create a BIER encapsulation with the SI set to zero and with bits 13,
   126, and 235 of the BitString set.  (All other bits of the BitString
   would be clear.)  If the packet also needs to be sent to a BFER whose



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   BFR-id is 257, the BFIR would have to create a second copy of the
   packet, and the BIER encapsulation would specify an SI of 1, and a
   BitString with bit 1 set and all the other bits clear.

   It is generally advantageous to assign the BFR-ids of a given
   sub-domain so that as many BFERs as possible can be represented in a
   single bit string.

   Suppose a BFR (call it "BFR-A") receives a packet whose BIER
   encapsulation specifies an SI of 0 and a BitString with bits 13, 26,
   and 235 set.  Suppose BFR-A has two BFR neighbors, BFR-B and BFR-C,
   such that the best path to BFERs 13 and 26 is via BFR-B, but the best
   path to BFER 235 is via BFR-C.  BFR-A will then replicate the packet,
   sending one copy to BFR-B and one copy to BFR-C.  However, BFR-A will
   clear bit 235 in the BitString of the packet copy it sends to BFR-B
   and will clear bits 13 and 26 in the BitString of the packet copy it
   sends to BFR-C.  As a result, BFR-B will forward the packet only
   towards BFERs 13 and 26, and BFR-C will forward the packet only
   towards BFER 235.  This ensures that each BFER receives only one copy
   of the packet.

   Detailed procedures for forwarding a BIER-encapsulated packet through
   a BIER domain can be found in Section 6.

   With this forwarding procedure, a multicast data packet can follow an
   optimal path from its BFIR to each of its BFERs.  Further, since the
   set of BFERs for a given packet is explicitly encoded into the BIER
   header, the packet is not sent to any BFER that does not need to
   receive it.  This allows for optimal forwarding of multicast traffic.
   This optimal forwarding is achieved without any need for transit BFRs
   to maintain per-flow state or to run a multicast tree-building
   protocol.

   The idea of encoding the set of egress nodes into the header of a
   multicast packet is not new.  For example, [Boivie_Feldman] proposes
   to encode the set of egress nodes as a set of IP addresses, and
   proposes mechanisms and procedures that are in some ways similar to
   those described in the current document.  However, since BIER encodes
   each BFR-id as a single bit in a bit string, it can represent up to
   128 BFERs in the same number of bits that it would take to carry the
   IPv6 address of a single BFER.  Thus, BIER scales to a much larger
   number of egress nodes per packet.

   BIER does not require that each transit BFR look up the best path to
   each BFER that is identified in the BIER header; the number of
   lookups required in the forwarding path for a single packet can be





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   limited to the number of neighboring BFRs; this can be much smaller
   than the number of BFERs.  See Section 6 (especially Section 6.5) for
   details.

   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.  The BFR Identifier and BFR-Prefix

   Each BFR MUST be assigned a single "BFR-prefix" for each sub-domain
   to which it belongs.  A BFR's BFR-prefix MUST be an IP address
   (either IPv4 or IPv6) of the BFR.  It is RECOMMENDED that the
   BFR-prefix be a loopback address of the BFR.

   If a BFR belongs to more than one sub-domain, it may (though it need
   not) have a different BFR-prefix in each sub-domain.

   All BFR-prefixes used within a given sub-domain MUST belong to the
   same address family (either IPv4 or IPv6).

   The BFR-prefix of a given BFR in a given sub-domain MUST be routable
   in that sub-domain.  Whether a particular BFR-prefix is routable in a
   given sub-domain depends on the "routing underlay" associated with
   that sub-domain.  The notion of "routing underlay" is described in
   Section 4.1.

   A "BFR Identifier" (BFR-id) is a number in the range [1,65535].
   Within a given sub-domain, every BFR that may need to function as a
   BFIR or BFER MUST have a single BFR-id, which identifies it uniquely
   within that sub-domain.  A BFR that does not need to function as a
   BFIR or BFER in a given sub-domain does not need to have a BFR-id in
   that sub-domain.

   The value 0 is not a legal BFR-id.

   The procedure for assigning a particular BFR-id to a particular BFR
   is outside the scope of this document.  However, it is RECOMMENDED
   that the BFR-ids for each sub-domain be assigned "densely" from the
   numbering space, as this will result in a more efficient encoding
   (see Section 3).  That is, if there are 256 or fewer BFERs, it is
   RECOMMENDED to assign all the BFR-ids from the range [1,256].  If
   there are more than 256 BFERs but less than 512, it is RECOMMENDED to
   assign all the BFR-ids from the range [1,512], with as few "holes" as





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   possible in the earlier range.  However, in some deployments, it may
   be advantageous to depart from this recommendation; this is discussed
   further in Section 3.

   In some deployments, it may not be possible to support (in a given
   sub-domain) the full range of 65,535 BFR-ids.  For example, if the
   BFRs in a given sub-domain only support 16 SIs and if they only
   support BitStringLengths of 256 or less, then only 16*256=4,096
   BFR-ids can be supported in that sub-domain.

3.  Encoding BFR Identifiers in BitStrings

   To encode a BFR-id in a BIER data packet, one must convert the BFR-id
   to an SI and a BitString.  This conversion depends upon the parameter
   we are calling "BitStringLength".  The conversion is done as follows.
   If the BFR-id is N, then

   o  SI is the integer part of the quotient (N-1)/BitStringLength.

   o  The BitString has one bit position set.  If the low-order bit is
      bit 1 and the high-order bit is bit BitStringLength, the bit
      position that represents BFR-id N is
      ((N-1) modulo BitStringLength)+1.

   If several different BFR-ids all resolve to the same SI, then all of
   those BFR-ids can be represented in a single BitString.  The
   BitStrings for all of those BFR-ids are combined using a bitwise
   logical OR operation.

   Within a given BIER domain (or even within a given BIER sub-domain),
   different values of BitStringLength may be used.  Each BFR MUST be
   provisioned to know the following:

   o  The BitStringLength ("Imposition BitStringLength") and sub-domain
      ("Imposition sub-domain") to use when it imposes (as a BFIR) a
      BIER encapsulation on a particular set of packets, and

   o  The BitStringLengths ("Disposition BitStringLengths") that it will
      process when (as a BFR or BFER) it receives packets from a
      particular sub-domain.

   It is not required that a BFIR use the same Imposition
   BitStringLength or the same Imposition sub-domain for all packets on
   which it imposes the BIER encapsulation.  However, if a particular
   BFIR is provisioned to use a particular Imposition BitStringLength
   and a particular Imposition sub-domain when imposing the
   encapsulation on a given set of packets, all other BFRs with BFR-ids
   in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned to process received BIER



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   packets with that BitStringLength (i.e., all other BFRs with BFR-ids
   in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned with that BitStringLength as
   a Disposition BitStringLength for that sub-domain).  Exceptions to
   this rule MAY be made under certain conditions; this is discussed in
   Section 6.10.

   When a BIER encapsulation is specified, the specification MUST define
   a default BitStringLength for the encapsulation.  Every BFIR
   supporting that encapsulation MUST be capable of being provisioned
   with that default BitStringLength as its Imposition BitStringLength.
   Every BFR and BFER supporting that encapsulation MUST be capable of
   being provisioned with that default BitStringLength as a Disposition
   BitStringLength.

   The specification of a BIER encapsulation MAY also allow the use of
   other BitStringLengths.

   If a BFR is capable of being provisioned with a given value of
   BitStringLength as an Imposition BitStringLength, it MUST also be
   capable of being provisioned with that same value as one of its
   Disposition BitStringLengths.  It SHOULD be capable of being
   provisioned with each legal smaller value of BitStringLength as (a)
   its Imposition BitStringLength, and (b) one of its Disposition
   BitStringLengths.

   In order to support transition from one BitStringLength to another,
   every BFR MUST be capable of being provisioned to simultaneously use
   two different Disposition BitStringLengths.

   A BFR MUST support SI values in the range [0,15] and MAY support SI
   values in the range [0,255].  ("Supporting the values in a given
   range" means, in this context, that any value in the given range is
   legal and will be properly interpreted.)  Note that for a given
   BitStringLength, the total number of BFR-ids that can be represented
   is the product of the BitStringLength and the number of supported
   SIs.  For example, if a deployment uses (in a given sub-domain) a
   BitStringLength of 64 and supports 256 SIs, that deployment can only
   support 16384 BFR-ids in that sub-domain.  Even a deployment that
   supports 256 SIs will not be able to support 65,535 BFR-ids unless it
   uses a BitStringLength of at least 256.

   When a BFIR determines that a multicast data packet, assigned to a
   given sub-domain, needs to be forwarded to a particular set of
   destination BFERs, the BFIR partitions that set of BFERs into
   subsets, where each subset contains the target BFERs whose BFR-ids in
   the given sub-domain all resolve to the same SI.  Call these the
   "SI-subsets" for the packet.  Each SI-subset can be represented by a
   single BitString.  The BFIR creates a copy of the packet for each



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   SI-subset.  The BIER encapsulation is then applied to each packet.
   The encapsulation specifies a single SI for each packet and contains
   the BitString that represents all the BFR-ids in the corresponding
   SI-subset.  Of course, in order to properly interpret the BitString,
   it must be possible to infer the sub-domain-id from the encapsulation
   as well.

   Suppose, for example, that a BFIR determines that a given packet
   needs to be forwarded to three BFERs, whose BFR-ids (in the
   appropriate sub-domain) are 27, 235, and 497.  The BFIR will have to
   forward two copies of the packet.  One copy, associated with SI=0,
   will have a BitString with bits 27 and 235 set.  The other copy,
   associated with SI=1, will have a BitString with bit 241 set.

   In order to minimize the number of copies that must be made of a
   given multicast packet, it is RECOMMENDED that the BFR-ids used in a
   given sub-domain be assigned "densely" (see Section 2) from the
   numbering space.  This will minimize the number of SIs that have to
   be used in that sub-domain.  However, depending upon the details of a
   particular deployment, other assignment methods may be more
   advantageous.  Suppose, for example, that in a certain deployment,
   every multicast flow is intended either for the "east coast" or for
   the "west coast", but not for both coasts.  In such a deployment, it
   would be advantageous to assign BFR-ids so that all the "west coast"
   BFR-ids fall into the same SI-subset and so that all the "east coast"
   BFR-ids fall into the same SI-subset.

   When a BFR receives a BIER data packet, it will infer the SI from the
   encapsulation.  The set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
   forwarded can then be inferred from the SI and the BitString.

   In some of the examples given later in this document, we will use a
   BitStringLength of 4 and will represent a BFR-id in the form
   "SI:xyzw", where SI is the Set Identifier of the BFR-id (assuming a
   BitStringLength of 4) and xyzw is a string of 4 bits.  A
   BitStringLength of 4 is used only in the examples; we would not
   expect actual deployments to have such a small BitStringLength.

   It is possible that several different forms of BIER encapsulation
   will be developed.  If so, the particular encapsulation that is used
   in a given deployment will depend on the type of network
   infrastructure that is used to realize the BIER domain.  Details of
   the BIER encapsulation(s) will be given in companion documents.  An
   encapsulation for use in MPLS networks is described in
   [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]; that document also describes a very similar
   encapsulation that can be used in non-MPLS networks.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


4.  Layering

   It is helpful to think of the BIER architecture as consisting of
   three layers: the "routing underlay", the "BIER layer", and the
   "multicast flow overlay".

4.1.  The Routing Underlay

   The "routing underlay" establishes "adjacencies" between pairs of
   BFRs and determines one or more "best paths" from a given BFR to a
   given set of BFRs.  Each such path is a sequence of BFRs
   <BFR(k), BFR(k+1), ..., BFR(k+n)> such that BFR(k+j) is "adjacent" to
   BFR(k+j+1) (for 0<=j<n).

   At a given BFR, say BFR-A, for every IP address that is the address
   of a BFR in the BIER domain, the routing underlay will map that IP
   address into a set of one or more "equal-cost" adjacencies.  If a
   BIER data packet has to be forwarded by BFR-A to a given BFER, say
   BFER-B, the packet will follow the path from BFR-A to BFER-B that is
   determined by the routing underlay.

   It is expected that in a typical deployment, the routing underlay
   will be the default topology that the Interior Gateway Protocol
   (IGP), e.g., OSPF, uses for unicast routing.  In that case, the
   underlay adjacencies are just the OSPF adjacencies.  A BIER data
   packet traveling from BFR-A to BFER-B will follow the path that OSPF
   has selected for unicast traffic from BFR-A to BFER-B.

   If one wants to have multicast traffic from BFR-A to BFER-B travel a
   path that is different from the path used by the unicast traffic from
   BFR-A to BFER-B, one can use a different underlay.  For example, if
   multi-topology OSPF is being used, one OSPF topology could be used
   for unicast traffic and the other for multicast traffic.  (Each
   topology would be considered to be a different underlay.)
   Alternatively, one could deploy a routing underlay that creates a
   multicast-specific tree of some sort.  BIER could then be used to
   forward multicast data packets along the multicast-specific tree,
   while unicast packets follow the "ordinary" OSPF best path.  (In a
   case like this, many multicast flows could be traveling along a
   single tree, and the BitString carried by a particular packet would
   identify those nodes of the tree that need to receive that packet.)
   It is even possible to have multiple routing underlays used by BIER,
   as long as one can infer from a data packet's BIER encapsulation
   which underlay is being used for that packet.







Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   If multiple routing underlays are used in a single BIER domain, each
   BIER sub-domain MUST be associated with a single routing underlay
   (though multiple sub-domains may be associated with the same routing
   underlay).  A BFR that belongs to multiple sub-domains MUST be
   provisioned to know which routing underlay is used by each
   sub-domain.  By default (i.e., in the absence of any provisioning to
   the contrary), each sub-domain uses the default topology of the
   unicast IGP as the routing underlay.

   In scenarios where External BGP (EBGP) is used as the IGP, the
   underlay adjacencies, by default, are the BGP adjacencies.

   Specification of the protocols and procedures of the routing underlay
   is outside the scope of this document.

4.2.  The BIER Layer

   The BIER layer consists of the protocols and procedures that are used
   in order to transmit a multicast data packet across a BIER domain,
   from its BFIR to its BFERs.  This includes the following components:

   o  Protocols and procedures that a given BFR uses to advertise, to
      all other BFRs in the same BIER domain:

      *  its BFR-prefix;

      *  its BFR-id in each sub-domain for which it has been provisioned
         with a BFR-id;

      *  the set of Disposition BitStringLengths it has been provisioned
         to use for each sub-domain;

      *  optionally, information about the routing underlay associated
         with each sub-domain.

   o  The procedures used by a BFIR to impose a BIER header on a
      multicast data packet.

   o  The procedures for forwarding BIER-encapsulated packets and for
      modifying the BIER header during transit.

   o  The procedures used by a BFER to decapsulate a BIER packet and
      properly dispatch it.








Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


4.3.  The Multicast Flow Overlay

   The "multicast flow overlay" consists of the set of protocols and
   procedures that enable the following set of functions.

   o  When a BFIR receives a multicast data packet from outside the BIER
      domain, the BFIR must determine the set of BFERs for that packet.
      This information is provided by the multicast flow overlay.

   o  When a BFER receives a BIER-encapsulated packet from inside the
      BIER domain, the BFER must determine how to further forward the
      packet.  This information is provided by the multicast flow
      overlay.

   For example, suppose the BFIR and BFERs are Provider Edge (PE)
   routers providing Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) service.
   The multicast flow overlay consists of the protocols and procedures
   described in [RFC6513] and [RFC6514].  The MVPN signaling described
   in those RFCs enables an ingress PE to determine the set of egress
   PEs for a given multicast flow (or set of flows); it also enables an
   egress PE to determine the "Virtual Routing and Forwarding Tables"
   (VRFs) to which multicast packets from the backbone network should be
   sent.  MVPN signaling also has several components that depend on the
   type of "tunneling technology" used to carry multicast data through
   the network.  Since BIER is, in effect, a new type of "tunneling
   technology", some extensions to the MVPN signaling are needed in
   order to properly interface the multicast flow overlay with the BIER
   layer.  These are specified in [BIER_MVPN].

   MVPN is just one example of a multicast flow overlay.  Protocols and
   procedures for other overlays will be provided in companion
   documents.  It is also possible to implement the multicast flow
   overlay by means of a "Software-Defined Network" (SDN) controller.
   Specification of the protocols and procedures of the multicast flow
   overlay is outside the scope of this document.

5.  Advertising BFR-ids and BFR-Prefixes

   As stated in Section 2, each BFER is assigned (by provisioning) a
   BFR-id (for a given BIER sub-domain).  Each BFER must advertise these
   assignments to all the other BFRs in the domain.  Similarly, each BFR
   is assigned (by provisioning) a BFR-prefix (for a given BIER domain)
   and must advertise this assignment to all the other BFRs in the
   domain.  Finally, each BFR has been provisioned to use a certain set
   of Disposition BitStringLengths for each sub-domain and must
   advertise these to all other BFRs in the domain.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   If the BIER domain is also a link-state routing IGP domain (i.e., an
   OSPF or IS-IS domain), the advertisement of the BFR-prefix,
   <sub-domain-id, BFR-id>, and BitStringLength can be done using the
   advertisement capabilities of the IGP.  For example, if a BIER domain
   is also an OSPF domain, these advertisements can be done using the
   OSPF "Opaque Link State Advertisement" (Opaque LSA) mechanism.
   Details of the necessary extensions to OSPF and IS-IS will be
   provided in companion documents.  (See [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS] and
   [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].)

   If, in a particular deployment, the BIER domain is not an OSPF or
   IS-IS domain, procedures suitable to the deployment must be used to
   advertise this information.  Details of the necessary procedures will
   be provided in companion documents.  For example, if BGP is the only
   routing algorithm used in the BIER domain, the procedures of
   [BGP_BIER_EXTENSIONS] may be used.

   These advertisements enable each BFR to associate a given
   <sub-domain-id, BFR-id> with a given BFR-prefix.  As will be seen in
   subsequent sections of this document, knowledge of this association
   is an important part of the forwarding process.

   Since each BFR needs to have a unique (in each sub-domain) BFR-id,
   two different BFRs will not advertise ownership of the same
   <sub-domain-id, BFR-id> unless there has been a provisioning error.

   o  If BFR-A determines that BFR-B and BFR-C have both advertised the
      same BFR-id for the same sub-domain, BFR-A MUST log an error.
      Suppose that the duplicate BFR-id is "N".  When BFR-A is
      functioning as a BFIR, it MUST NOT encode the BFR-id value N in
      the BIER encapsulation of any packet that has been assigned to the
      given sub-domain, even if it has determined that the packet needs
      to be received by BFR-B and/or BFR-C.

      This will mean that BFR-B and BFR-C cannot receive multicast
      traffic at all in the given sub-domain until the provisioning
      error is fixed.  However, that is preferable to having them
      receive each other's traffic.

   o  Suppose that BFR-A has been provisioned with BFR-id N for a
      particular sub-domain but that it has not yet advertised its
      ownership of BFR-id N for that sub-domain.  Suppose also that it
      has received an advertisement from a different BFR (say BFR-B)
      that is advertising ownership of BFR-id N for the same sub-domain.
      In such a case, BFR-A SHOULD log an error and MUST NOT advertise
      its own ownership of BFR-id N for that sub-domain as long as the
      advertisement from BFR-B is extant.




Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


      This procedure may prevent the accidental misconfiguration of a
      new BFR from impacting an existing BFR.

   If a BFR advertises that it has a BFR-id of 0 in a particular
   sub-domain, other BFRs receiving the advertisement MUST interpret
   that advertisement as meaning that the advertising BFR does not have
   a BFR-id in that sub-domain.

6.  BIER Intra-Domain Forwarding Procedures

   This section specifies the rules for forwarding a BIER-encapsulated
   data packet within a BIER domain.  These rules are not intended to
   specify an implementation strategy; to conform to this specification,
   an implementation need only produce the same results that these rules
   produce.

6.1.  Overview

   This section provides a brief overview of the BIER forwarding
   procedures.  Subsequent subsections specify the procedures in more
   detail.

   To forward a BIER-encapsulated packet:

   1.  Determine the packet's sub-domain.

   2.  Determine the packet's BitStringLength and BitString.

   3.  Determine the packet's SI.

   4.  From the sub-domain, the SI, and the BitString, determine the set
       of destination BFERs for the packet.

   5.  Using information provided by the routing underlay associated
       with the packet's sub-domain, determine the next-hop adjacency
       for each of the destination BFERs.

   6.  It is possible that the packet's BitString will have one or more
       bits that correspond to BFR-ids that are not in use.  It is also
       possible that the packet's BitString will have one or more bits
       that correspond to BFERs that are unreachable, i.e., that have no
       next-hop adjacency.  In the following, we will consider the
       "next-hop adjacency" for all such bit positions to be the "null"
       next hop.

   7.  Partition the set of destination BFERs such that all the BFERs in
       a single partition have the same next hop.  We will say that each
       partition is associated with a next hop.



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   8.  For each partition:

       a.  Make a copy of the packet.

       b.  Clear any bit in the packet's BitString that identifies a
           BFER that is not in the partition.

       c.  Transmit the packet to the associated next hop.  (If the
           next hop is the null next hop, the packet is discarded.)

   If a BFR receives a BIER-encapsulated packet whose <sub-domain, SI,
   BitString> triple identifies that BFR itself, then the BFR is also a
   BFER for that packet.  As a BFER, it must pass the payload to the
   multicast flow overlay.  If the BitString has bits set for other
   BFRs, the packet also needs to be forwarded further within the BIER
   domain.  If the BF(E)R also forwards one or more copies of the packet
   within the BIER domain, the bit representing the BFR's own BFR-id
   MUST be clear in all the copies.

   When BIER on a BFER is to pass a packet to the multicast flow
   overlay, it of course decapsulates the packet by removing the BIER
   header.  However, it may be necessary to provide the multicast flow
   overlay with contextual information obtained from the BIER
   encapsulation.  The information that needs to pass between the BIER
   layer and the multicast flow overlay is specific to the multicast
   flow overlay.  Specification of the interaction between the BIER
   layer and the multicast flow overlay is outside the scope of this
   specification.

   If the BIER encapsulation contains a "Time to Live" (TTL) value, this
   value is not, by default, inherited by the payload.  If a particular
   multicast flow overlay needs to know the TTL value, this needs to be
   specified in whatever specification defines the interaction between
   BIER and that multicast flow overlay.

   If the BIER encapsulation contains a Traffic Class field, a
   Type of Service field, a Differentiated Services field, or any field
   of that sort, the value of that field is not, by default, passed to
   the multicast flow overlay.  If a particular multicast flow overlay
   needs to know the values of such fields, this fact needs to be
   specified in whatever specification defines the interaction between
   BIER and that multicast flow overlay.

   When BIER on a BFER passes a packet to the multicast flow overlay,
   the overlay will determine how to further dispatch the packet.  If
   the packet needs to be forwarded into another BIER domain, then the
   BFR will act as a BFER in one BIER domain and as a BFIR in another.




Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   A BIER-encapsulated packet cannot pass directly from one BIER domain
   to another; at the boundary between BIER domains, the packet must be
   decapsulated and passed to the multicast flow overlay.

   Note that when a BFR transmits multiple copies of a packet within a
   BIER domain, only one copy will be destined to any given BFER.
   Therefore, it is not possible for any BIER-encapsulated packet to be
   delivered more than once to any BFER.

6.2.  BFR Neighbors

   The "BFR Neighbors" (BFR-NBRs) of a given BFR, say BFR-A, are those
   BFRs that, according to the routing underlay, are adjacencies of
   BFR-A.  Each BFR-NBR will have a BFR-prefix.

   Suppose a BIER-encapsulated packet arrives at BFR-A.  From the
   packet's encapsulation, BFR-A learns (a) the sub-domain of the packet
   and (b) the BFR-ids (in that sub-domain) of the BFERs to which the
   packet is destined.  Then, using the information advertised per
   Section 5, BFR-A can find the BFR-prefix of each destination BFER.
   Given the BFR-prefix of a particular destination BFER, say BFER-D,
   BFR-A learns from the routing underlay (associated with the packet's
   sub-domain) an IP address of the BFR that is the next hop on the path
   from BFR-A to BFER-D.  Let's call this next hop "BFR-B".  BFR-A must
   then determine the BFR-prefix of BFR-B.  (This determination can be
   made from the information advertised per Section 5.)  This BFR-prefix
   is the BFR-NBR of BFR-A on the path from BFR-A to BFER-D.

   Note that if the routing underlay provides multiple equal-cost paths
   from BFR-A to BFER-D, BFR-A may have multiple BFR-NBRs for BFER-D.

   Under certain circumstances, a BFR may have adjacencies (in a
   particular routing underlay) that are not BFRs.  Please see
   Section 6.9 for a discussion of how to handle those circumstances.

















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.3.  The Bit Index Routing Table

   The "Bit Index Routing Table" (BIRT) is a table that maps from the
   BFR-id (in a particular sub-domain) of a BFER to the BFR-prefix of
   that BFER, and to the BFR-NBR on the path to that BFER.  As an
   example, consider the topology shown in Figure 1.  In this diagram,
   we represent the BFR-id of each BFR in the SI:xyzw form discussed in
   Section 3.

      ( A ) ------------ ( B ) ------------ ( C ) ------------ ( D )
     4 (0:1000)             \                  \           1 (0:0001)
                             \                  \
                             ( E )              ( F )
                           3 (0:0100)         2 (0:0010)

                         Figure 1: BIER Topology 1

   This topology will result in the BIRT of Figure 2 at BFR-B.  The
   first column shows the BFR-id as a number and also (in parentheses)
   in the SI:BitString format that corresponds to a BitStringLength
   of 4.  (The actual minimum BitStringLength is 64, but we use 4 in the
   examples.)

   Note that a BIRT is specific to a particular BIER sub-domain.

               --------------------------------------------
               |     BFR-id     |  BFR-Prefix  | BFR-NBR  |
               | (SI:BitString) | of Dest BFER |          |
               ============================================
               |   4 (0:1000)   |     A        |     A    |
               --------------------------------------------
               |   1 (0:0001)   |     D        |     C    |
               --------------------------------------------
               |   3 (0:0100)   |     E        |     E    |
               --------------------------------------------
               |   2 (0:0010)   |     F        |     C    |
               --------------------------------------------

                Figure 2: Bit Index Routing Table at BFR-B












Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.4.  The Bit Index Forwarding Table

   The "Bit Index Forwarding Table" (BIFT) is derived from the BIRT as
   follows.  (Note that a BIFT is specific to a particular sub-domain.)

   Suppose that several rows in the BIRT have the same SI and the same
   BFR-NBR.  By taking the logical OR of the BitStrings of those rows,
   we obtain a bit mask that corresponds to that combination of SI and
   BFR-NBR.  We will refer to this bit mask as the "Forwarding Bit Mask"
   (F-BM) for that <SI, BFR-NBR> combination.

   For example, in Figure 2, we see that two of the rows have the same
   SI (0) and same BFR-NBR (C).  The bit mask that corresponds to
   <SI=0, BFR-NBR-C> is 0011 ("0001" OR'd with "0010").

   The BIFT is used to map from the BFR-id of a BFER to the
   corresponding F-BM and BFR-NBR.  For example, Figure 3 shows the BIFT
   that is derived from the BIRT of Figure 2.  Note that BFR-ids 1 and 2
   have the same SI and the same BFR-NBR; hence, they have the
   same F-BM.

                   -------------------------------------
                   |      BFR-id    |  F-BM  | BFR-NBR |
                   | (SI:BitString) |        |         |
                   =====================================
                   |   1 (0:0001)   |  0011  |    C    |
                   -------------------------------------
                   |   2 (0:0010)   |  0011  |    C    |
                   -------------------------------------
                   |   3 (0:0100)   |  0100  |    E    |
                   -------------------------------------
                   |   4 (0:1000)   |  1000  |    A    |
                   -------------------------------------

                   Figure 3: Bit Index Forwarding Table

   This BIFT is programmed into the data plane and used to forward
   packets, applying the rules specified below in Section 6.5.













Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.5.  The BIER Forwarding Procedure

   Below is the procedure that a BFR uses for forwarding a
   BIER-encapsulated packet.

   1.  Determine the packet's SI, BitStringLength, and sub-domain.

   2.  If the BitString consists entirely of zeroes, discard the packet;
       the forwarding process has been completed.  Otherwise, proceed to
       step 3.

   3.  Find the position (call it "k") of the least significant (i.e.,
       of the rightmost) bit that is set in the packet's BitString.
       (Remember, bits are numbered from 1, starting with the least
       significant bit.)

   4.  If bit k identifies the BFR itself, copy the packet, and send the
       copy to the multicast flow overlay.  Then clear bit k in the
       original packet, and go to step 2.  Otherwise, proceed to step 5.

   5.  Use the value k, together with the SI, sub-domain, and
       BitStringLength, as the "index" into the BIFT.

   6.  Extract from the BIFT the F-BM and the BFR-NBR.

   7.  Copy the packet.  Update the copy's BitString by AND'ing it with
       the F-BM (i.e., PacketCopy->BitString &= F-BM).  Then forward the
       copy to the BFR-NBR.  (If the BFR-NBR is null, the copy is just
       discarded.)  Note that when a packet is forwarded to a particular
       BFR-NBR, its BitString identifies only those BFERs that are to be
       reached via that BFR-NBR.

   8.  Now update the original packet's BitString by AND'ing it with the
       INVERSE of the F-BM (i.e., Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM).  (This
       clears the bits that identify the BFERs to which a copy of the
       packet has just been forwarded.)  Go to step 2.

   This procedure causes the packet to be forwarded to a particular
   BFR-NBR only once.  The number of lookups in the BIFT is the same as
   the number of BFR-NBRs to which the packet must be forwarded; it is
   not necessary to do a separate lookup for each destination BFER.

   When a packet is sent to a particular BFR-NBR, the BitString is not
   the only part of the BIER header that needs to be modified.  If there
   is a TTL field in the BIER header, it will need to be decremented.
   In addition, when either of the encapsulations of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]
   is used, the BIFT-id field is likely to require modification, based
   on signaling from the BFR-NBR to which the packet is being sent.  The



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   BIFT-id field of an incoming BIER packet implicitly identifies an SI,
   a sub-domain, and a BitStringLength.  If the packet is sent to a
   particular BFR-NBR, the BIFT-id field must be changed to whatever
   value that BFR-NBR has advertised for the same SI, sub-domain, and
   BitStringLength.  (If the encapsulation of Section 2.1 of
   [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS] is used, this is essentially an MPLS label swap
   operation.)

   Suppose it has been decided (by the above rules) to send a packet to
   a particular BFR-NBR.  If that BFR-NBR is connected via multiple
   parallel interfaces, it may be desirable to apply some form of load
   balancing.  Load-balancing algorithms are outside the scope of this
   document.  However, if the packet's encapsulation contains an entropy
   field, the entropy field SHOULD be respected; two packets with the
   same value of the entropy field SHOULD be sent on the same interface
   (if possible).

   In some cases, the routing underlay may provide multiple equal-cost
   paths (through different BFR-NBRs) to a given BFER.  This is known as
   "Equal-Cost Multipath" (ECMP).  The procedures described in this
   section must be augmented in order to support load balancing over
   ECMP.  The necessary augmentations can be found in Section 6.7.

   In the event that unicast traffic to the BFR-NBR is being sent via a
   "bypass tunnel" of some sort, the BIER-encapsulated multicast traffic
   sent to the BFR-NBR SHOULD also be sent via that tunnel.  This allows
   any existing "fast reroute" schemes to be applied to multicast
   traffic as well as to unicast traffic.

   Some examples of these forwarding procedures can be found in
   Section 6.6.




















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   The rules given in this section can be represented by the following
   pseudocode:

   void ForwardBitMaskPacket (Packet)
   {
       SI=GetPacketSI(Packet);
       Offset=SI*BitStringLength;
       for (Index = GetFirstBitPosition(Packet->BitString); Index ;
            Index = GetNextBitPosition(Packet->BitString, Index)) {
           F-BM = BIFT[Index+Offset]->F-BM;
           if (!F-BM) continue;
           BFR-NBR = BIFT[Index+Offset]->BFR-NBR;
           PacketCopy = Copy(Packet);
           PacketCopy->BitString &= F-BM;
           PacketSend(PacketCopy, BFR-NBR);
           Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM;
       }
   }

                           Figure 4: Pseudocode

   This pseudocode assumes that, at a given BFER, the BFR-NBR entry
   corresponding to the BFER's own BFR-id will be the BFER's own
   BFR-prefix.  It also assumes that the corresponding F-BM has only
   one bit set, the bit representing the BFER itself.  In this case, the
   "PacketSend" function sends the packet to the multicast flow overlay.

   This pseudocode also assumes that the F-BM for the null next hop
   contains a 1 in a given bit position if and only if that bit position
   corresponds to either an unused BFR-id or an unreachable BFER.  When
   the BFR-NBR is null, the "PacketSend" function discards the packet.




















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.6.  Examples of BIER Forwarding

   In this section, we give two examples of BIER forwarding, based on
   the topology in Figure 1.  In these examples, all packets have been
   assigned to the default sub-domain, all packets have SI=0, and the
   BitStringLength is 4.  Figure 5 shows the BIFT entries for SI=0 only.
   For compactness, we show the first column of the BIFT, the BFR-id,
   only as an integer.

           BFR-A BIFT            BFR-B BIFT            BFR-C BIFT
      -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
      | Id | F-BM | NBR |   | Id | F-BM | NBR |   | Id | F-BM | NBR |
      ===================   ===================   ===================
      |  1 | 0111 |  B  |   |  1 | 0011 |  C  |   |  1 | 0001 |  D  |
      -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
      |  2 | 0111 |  B  |   |  2 | 0011 |  C  |   |  2 | 0010 |  F  |
      -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
      |  3 | 0111 |  B  |   |  3 | 0100 |  E  |   |  3 | 1100 |  B  |
      -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
      |  4 | 1000 |  A  |   |  4 | 1000 |  A  |   |  4 | 1100 |  B  |
      -------------------   -------------------   -------------------

              Figure 5: BIFTs Used in the Forwarding Examples

6.6.1.  Example 1

   BFR-D, BFR-E, and BFR-F are BFERs.  BFR-A is the BFIR.  Suppose that
   BFIR-A has learned from the multicast flow overlay that BFER-D is
   interested in a given multicast flow.  If BFIR-A receives a packet of
   that flow from outside the BIER domain, BFIR-A applies the BIER
   encapsulation to the packet.  The encapsulation must be such that the
   SI is zero.  The encapsulation also includes a BitString, with just
   bit 1 set and with all other bits clear (i.e., 0001).  This indicates
   that BFER-D is the only BFER that needs to receive the packet.
   BFIR-A then follows the procedures of Section 6.5, as follows:

   o  Since the packet's BitString is 0001, BFIR-A finds that the first
      bit in the string is bit 1.  Looking at entry 1 in its BIFT, BFR-A
      determines that the bit mask F-BM is 0111 and the BFR-NBR is
      BFR-B.

   o  BFR-A then makes a copy of the packet and applies the F-BM to the
      copy: Copy->BitString &= 0111.  The copy's BitString is now 0001
      (0001 & 0111).

   o  The copy is now sent to BFR-B.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   o  BFR-A then updates the packet's BitString by applying the inverse
      of the F-BM: Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM.  As a result, the
      packet's BitString is now 0000 (0001 & 1000).

   o  As the packet's BitString is now zero, the forwarding procedure is
      complete.

   When BFR-B receives the multicast packet from BFR-A, it follows the
   same procedure.  The result is that a copy of the packet, with a
   BitString of 0001, is sent to BFR-C.  BFR-C applies the same
   procedures and, as a result, sends a copy of the packet, with a
   BitString of 0001, to BFR-D.

   At BFER-D, the BIFT entry (not pictured) for BFR-id 1 will specify an
   F-BM of 0001 and a BFR-NBR of BFR-D itself.  This will cause a copy
   of the packet to be delivered to the multicast flow overlay at BFR-D.
   The packet's BitString will be set to 0000, and the packet will not
   be forwarded any further.

6.6.2.  Example 2

   This example is similar to example 1, except that BFIR-A has learned
   from the multicast flow overlay that both BFER-D and BFER-E are
   interested in a given multicast flow.  If BFIR-A receives a packet of
   that flow from outside the BIER domain, BFIR-A applies the BIER
   encapsulation to the packet.  The encapsulation must be such that the
   SI is zero.  The encapsulation also includes a BitString with
   two bits set: bit 1 is set (as in example 1) to indicate that BFR-D
   is a BFER for this packet, and bit 3 is set to indicate that BFR-E is
   a BFER for this packet.  That is, the BitString (assuming again a
   BitStringLength of 4) is 0101.  To forward the packet, BFIR-A follows
   the procedures of Section 6.5, as follows:

   o  Since the packet's BitString is 0101, BFIR-A finds that the first
      bit in the string is bit 1.  Looking at entry 1 in its BIFT, BFR-A
      determines that the bit mask F-BM is 0111 and the BFR-NBR is
      BFR-B.

   o  BFR-A then makes a copy of the packet and applies the F-BM to the
      copy: Copy->BitString &= 0111.  The copy's BitString is now 0101
      (0101 & 0111).

   o  The copy is now sent to BFR-B.








Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   o  BFR-A then updates the packet's BitString by applying the inverse
      of the F-BM: Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM.  As a result, the
      packet's BitString is now 0000 (0101 & 1000).

   o  As the packet's BitString is now zero, the forwarding procedure is
      complete.

   When BFR-B receives the multicast packet from BFR-A, it follows the
   procedure of Section 6.5, as follows:

   o  Since the packet's BitString is 0101, BFR-B finds that the first
      bit in the string is bit 1.  Looking at entry 1 in its BIFT, BFR-B
      determines that the bit mask F-BM is 0011 and the BFR-NBR is
      BFR-C.

   o  BFR-B then makes a copy of the packet and applies the F-BM to the
      copy: Copy->BitString &= 0011.  The copy's BitString is now 0001
      (0101 & 0011).

   o  The copy is now sent to BFR-C.

   o  BFR-B then updates the packet's BitString by applying the inverse
      of the F-BM: Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM.  As a result, the
      packet's BitString is now 0100 (0101 & 1100).

   o  Now BFR-B finds the next bit in the packet's (modified) BitString.
      This is bit 3.  Looking at entry 3 in its BIFT, BFR-B determines
      that the F-BM is 0100 and the BFR-NBR is BFR-E.

   o  BFR-B then makes a copy of the packet and applies the F-BM to the
      copy: Copy->BitString &= 0100.  The copy's BitString is now 0100
      (0100 & 0100).

   o  The copy is now sent to BFR-E.

   o  BFR-B then updates the packet's BitString by applying the inverse
      of the F-BM: Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM.  As a result, the
      packet's BitString is now 0000 (0100 & 1011).

   o  As the packet's BitString is now zero, the forwarding procedure is
      complete.

   Thus, BFR-B forwards two copies of the packet.  One copy of the
   packet, with BitString 0001, has now been sent from BFR-B to BFR-C.
   Following the same procedures, BFR-C will forward the packet to
   BFER-D.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   At BFER-D, the BIFT entry (not pictured) for BFR-id 1 will specify an
   F-BM of 0001 and a BFR-NBR of BFR-D itself.  This will cause a copy
   of the packet to be delivered to the multicast flow overlay at BFR-D.
   The packet's BitString will be set to 0000, and the packet will not
   be forwarded any further.

   The other copy of the packet has been sent from BFR-B to BFER-E, with
   BitString 0100.

   At BFER-E, the BIFT entry (not pictured) for BFR-id 3 will specify an
   F-BM of 0100 and a BFR-NBR of BFR-E itself.  This will cause a copy
   of the packet to be delivered to the multicast flow overlay at BFR-E.
   The packet's BitString will be set to 0000, and the packet will not
   be forwarded any further.

6.7.  Equal-Cost Multipath Forwarding

   In many networks, the routing underlay will provide multiple
   equal-cost paths from a given BFR to a given BFER.  When forwarding
   multicast packets through the network, it can be beneficial to take
   advantage of this by load-balancing among those paths.  This feature
   is known as "Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) forwarding".

   BIER supports ECMP forwarding, but the procedures of Section 6.5 must
   be modified slightly.  Two ECMP procedures are defined.  In the first
   (described in Section 6.7.1), the choice among equal-cost paths taken
   by a given packet from a given BFR to a given BFER depends on
   (a) routing, (b) the packet's entropy, and (c) the other BFERs to
   which that packet is destined.  In the second (described in
   Section 6.7.2), the choice depends only upon the packet's entropy.

   There are trade-offs between the two forwarding procedures described
   here.  In the procedure of Section 6.7.1, the number of packet
   replications is minimized.  The procedure in Section 6.7.1 also uses
   less memory in the BFR.  In the procedure of Section 6.7.2, the path
   traveled by a given packet from a given BFR to a given BFER is
   independent of the other BFERs to which the packet is destined.
   While the procedures of Section 6.7.2 may cause more replications,
   they provide a more predictable behavior.

   The two procedures described here operate on identical packet formats
   and will interoperate correctly.  However, if deterministic behavior
   is desired, then all BFRs would need to use the procedure from
   Section 6.7.2.







Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.7.1.  Non-deterministic ECMP

   Figure 6 shows the operation of non-deterministic ECMP in BIER.

          BFR-A BIFT            BFR-B BIFT            BFR-C BIFT
     -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
     | Id | F-BM | NBR |   | Id | F-BM | NBR |   | Id | F-BM | NBR |
     ===================   ===================   ===================
     | 1  | 0111 |  B  |   | 1  | 0011 |  C  |   | 1  | 0001 |  D  |
     -------------------   -------------------   -------------------
     | 2  | 0111 |  B  |   | 2  | 0011 |  C  |   | 2  | 0010 |  F  |
     -------------------   |    | 0110 |  E  |   -------------------
     | 3  | 0111 |  B  |   -------------------   | 3  | 1100 |  B  |
     -------------------   | 3  | 0110 |  E  |   -------------------
     | 4  | 1000 |  A  |   ------------------|   | 4  | 1100 |  B  |
     -------------------   | 4  | 1000 |  A  |   -------------------
                           -------------------

      ( A ) ------------ ( B ) ------------ ( C ) ------------ ( D )
     4 (0:1000)             \                  \           1 (0:0001)
                             \                  \
                             ( E ) ------------ ( F )
                           3 (0:0100)         2 (0:0010)

                Figure 6: Example of Non-deterministic ECMP

   In this example, BFR-B has two equal-cost paths to reach BFER-F: one
   via BFR-C and one via BFR-E.  Since the BFR-id of BFER-F is 2, this
   is reflected in entry 2 of BFR-B's BIFT.  Entry 2 shows that BFR-B
   has a choice of two BFR-NBRs for BFER-B and that a different F-BM is
   associated with each choice.  When BFR-B looks up entry 2 in the
   BIFT, it can choose either BFR-NBR.  However, when following the
   procedures of Section 6.5, it MUST use the F-BM corresponding to the
   BFR-NBR that it chooses.

   How the choice is made is an implementation matter.  However, the
   usual rules for ECMP apply: packets of a given flow SHOULD NOT be
   split among two paths, and any entropy field in the packet's
   encapsulation SHOULD be respected.

   Note, however, that by the rules of Section 6.5, any packet destined
   for both BFER-D and BFER-F will be sent via BFR-C.









Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.7.2.  Deterministic ECMP

   With the procedures of Section 6.7.1, where ECMP paths exist, the
   path a packet takes to reach any particular BFER depends not only on
   routing and on the packet's entropy but also on the set of other
   BFERs to which the packet is destined.

   For example, consider the following scenario in the network of
   Figure 6.

   o  There is a sequence of packets being transmitted by BFR-A, some of
      which are destined for both D and F and some of which are destined
      only for F.

   o  All the packets in this sequence have the same entropy value (call
      it "Q").

   o  At BFR-B, when a packet with entropy value Q is forwarded via
      entry 2 in the BIFT, the packet is sent to E.

   Using the forwarding procedure of Section 6.7.1, packets of this
   sequence that are destined for both D and F are forwarded according
   to entry 1 in the BIFT and thus will reach F via the path A-B-C-F.
   However, packets of this sequence that are destined only for F are
   forwarded according to entry 2 in the BIFT and thus will reach F via
   the path A-B-E-F.

   That procedure minimizes the number of packets transmitted by BFR-B.
   However, consider the following scenario:

   o  Beginning at time t0, the multicast flow in question needs to be
      received ONLY by BFER-F.

   o  Beginning at a later time, t1, the flow needs to be received by
      both BFER-D and BFER-F.

   o  Beginning at a later time, t2, the flow no longer needs to be
      received by D, but still needs to be received by F.

   Then, from t0 until t1, the flow will travel to F via the path
   A-B-E-F.  From t1 until t2, the flow will travel to F via the path
   A-B-C-F.  And from t2, the flow will again travel to F via the path
   A-B-E-F.

   The problem is that if D repeatedly joins and leaves the flow, the
   flow's path from B to F will keep switching.  This could cause F to
   receive packets out of order.  It also makes troubleshooting
   difficult.  For example, if there is some problem on the E-F link,



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   receivers at F will get good service when the flow is also going to D
   (avoiding the E-F link) but bad service when the flow is not going
   to D.  Since it is hard to know which path is being used at any given
   time, this may be hard to troubleshoot.  Also, it is very difficult
   to perform a traceroute that is known to follow the path taken by the
   flow at any given time.

   The source of this difficulty is that, in the procedures of
   Section 6.7.1, the path taken by a particular flow to a particular
   BFER depends upon whether there are lower-numbered BFERs that are
   also receiving the flow.  Thus, the choice among the ECMP paths is
   fundamentally non-deterministic.

   Deterministic forwarding can be achieved by using multiple BIFTs,
   such that each row in a BIFT has only one path to each destination
   but the multiple ECMP paths to any particular destination are spread
   across the multiple tables.  When a BIER-encapsulated packet arrives
   to be forwarded, the BFR uses a hash of the BIER entropy field to
   determine which BIFT to use, and then the normal BIER forwarding
   algorithm (as described in Sections 6.5 and 6.6) is used with the
   selected BIFT.

   As an example, suppose there are two paths to destination X (call
   them "X1" and "X2") and four paths to destination Y (call them "Y1",
   "Y2", "Y3", and "Y4").  If there are, say, four BIFTs, one BIFT would
   have paths X1 and Y1, one would have X1 and Y2, one would have X2 and
   Y3, and one would have X2 and Y4.  If traffic to X is split evenly
   among these four BIFTs, the traffic will be split evenly between the
   two paths to X; if traffic to Y is split evenly among these four
   BIFTs, the traffic will be split evenly between the four paths to Y.

   Note that if there are three paths to one destination and four paths
   to another, 12 BIFTs would be required in order to get even splitting
   of the load to each of those two destinations.  Of course, each BIFT
   uses some memory, and one might be willing to have less optimal
   splitting in order to have fewer BIFTs.  How that trade-off is made
   is an implementation or deployment decision.

6.8.  Prevention of Loops and Duplicates

   The BitString in a BIER-encapsulated packet specifies the set of
   BFERs to which that packet is to be forwarded.  When a
   BIER-encapsulated packet is replicated, no two copies of the packet
   will ever have a BFER in common.  If one of the packet's BFERs
   forwards the packet further, that BFER will first clear the bit that
   identifies itself.  As a result, duplicate delivery of packets is not
   possible with BIER.




Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 29]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   As long as the routing underlay provides a loop-free path between
   each pair of BFRs, BIER-encapsulated packets will not loop.  Since
   the BIER layer does not create any paths of its own, there is no need
   for any BIER-specific loop-prevention techniques beyond the
   forwarding procedures specified in Section 6.5.

   If, at some time, the routing underlay is not providing a loop-free
   path between BFIR-A and BFER-B, then BIER-encapsulated packets may
   loop while traveling from BFIR-A to BFER-B.  However, such loops will
   never result in delivery of duplicate packets to BFER-B.

   These properties of BIER eliminate the need for the "Reverse Path
   Forwarding" (RPF) check that is used in conventional IP multicast
   forwarding.

6.9.  When Some Nodes Do Not Support BIER

   The procedures of Section 6.2 presuppose that, within a given BIER
   domain, all the nodes adjacent to a given BFR in a given routing
   underlay are also BFRs.  However, it is possible to use BIER even
   when this is not the case, as long as the ingress and egress nodes
   are BFRs.  In this section, we describe procedures that can be used
   if the routing underlay is an SPF-based IGP that computes a
   shortest-path tree from each node to all other nodes in the domain.

   At a given BFR, say "BFR-B", start with a copy of the IGP-computed
   shortest-path tree from BFR-B to each router in the domain.  (This
   tree is computed by the SPF algorithm of the IGP.)  Let's call this
   copy the "BIER-SPF tree rooted at BFR-B".  BFR-B then modifies this
   BIER-SPF tree as follows.

   1.  BFR-B looks in turn at each of its child nodes on the BIER-SPF
       tree.

   2.  If one of the child nodes does not support BIER, BFR-B removes
       that node from the tree.  The child nodes of the node that has
       just been removed are then re-parented on the tree, so that BFR-B
       now becomes their parent.

   3.  BFR-B then continues to look at each of its child nodes,
       including any nodes that have been re-parented to BFR-B as a
       result of the previous step.

   When all of the child nodes (the original child nodes plus any new
   ones) have been examined, BFR-B's children on the BIER-SPF tree will
   all be BFRs.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 30]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   When the BIFT is constructed, BFR-B's child nodes on the BIER-SPF
   tree are considered to be the BFR-NBRs.  The F-BMs must be computed
   appropriately, based on the BFR-NBRs.

   BFR-B may now have BFR-NBRs that are not "directly connected" to
   BFR-B via Layer 2.  To send a packet to one of these BFR-NBRs, BFR-B
   will have to send the packet through a unicast tunnel.  In an MPLS
   network, this may be as simple as finding the IGP unicast next hop to
   the child node and pushing on (above the BIER encapsulation header)
   an MPLS label that the IGP next hop has bound to an address of the
   child node.  (This assumes that the packet is using an MPLS-based
   BIER encapsulation, such as the one specified in Section 2.1 of
   [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS].)  Of course, the BIFT-id in the BIER
   encapsulation header must be the BIFT-id advertised by the child node
   for the packet's SI, sub-domain, and BitStringLength.

   If for some reason the unicast tunnel cannot be an MPLS tunnel, any
   other kind of tunnel can be used, as long as the encapsulation for
   that tunnel type has a way of indicating that the payload is a
   BIER-encapsulated packet.

   Note that if a BIER-encapsulated packet is not using an MPLS-based
   BIER encapsulation, it will not be possible to send it through an
   MPLS tunnel unless it is known that the tunnel only carries BIER
   packets; this is because MPLS has no "next protocol type" field.
   This is not a problem if an MPLS-based BIER encapsulation is used,
   because in that case the BIER encapsulation begins with an MPLS label
   that identifies the packet as a BIER-encapsulated packet.

   Of course, the above is not meant as an implementation technique,
   just as a functional description.

   While the above description assumes that the routing underlay
   provides an SPF tree, it may also be applicable to other types of
   routing underlays.

   The technique above can also be used to provide "node protection"
   (i.e., to provide fast reroute around nodes that are believed to have
   failed).  If BFR-B has a failed BFR-NBR, BFR-B can remove the failed
   BFR-NBR from the BIER-SPF tree and can then re-parent the child
   BFR-NBRs of the failed BFR-NBR so that they appear to be BFR-B's own
   child nodes on the tree (i.e., so that they appear to be BFR-B's
   BFR-NBRs).  The usual BIER forwarding procedures then apply.
   However, getting the packet from BFR-B to the child nodes of the
   failed BFR-NBR is a bit more complicated, as it may require using a
   unicast bypass tunnel to get around the failed node.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 31]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   A simpler variant of step 2 above would be the following:

      If one of the child nodes does not support BIER, BFR-B removes
      that node from the tree.  All BFERs that are reached through that
      child node are then re-parented on the tree, so that BFR-B now
      becomes their parent.

   This variant is simpler because the set of BFERs that are reached
   through a particular child node of BFR-B can be determined from the
   F-BM in the BIFT.  However, if this variant is used, the results are
   less optimal, because packets will be unicast directly from BFR-B to
   the BFERs that are reachable through the non-BIER child node.

   When using a unicast MPLS tunnel to get a packet to a BFR-NBR:

   o  The TTL of the MPLS label entry representing the tunnel SHOULD be
      set to a large value, rather than being copied from the TTL value
      from the BIER encapsulation header, and

   o  When the tunnel labels are popped off, the TTL from the tunnel
      labels SHOULD NOT be copied to the BIER encapsulation header.

   In other words, the TTL processing for the tunnel SHOULD be as
   specified in [RFC3443] for "Pipe Model" and "Short Pipe Model" Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs).  The same principle applies if the tunnels are
   not MPLS tunnels; the BIER packet SHOULD NOT inherit the TTL from the
   tunnel encapsulation.  That way, the TTL of the BIER encapsulation
   header constrains only the number of BFRs that the packet may
   traverse, not the total number of hops.

   If two BIER packets have the same value in the entropy field of their
   respective BIER headers and if both are transmitted through a given
   tunnel, it is desirable for the tunnel encapsulation to preserve the
   fact that the two packets have the same entropy.

   The material in this section presupposes that if a given router is a
   BFR, then it supports BIER on all its interfaces.  It is, however,
   possible that a router will have some line cards that support BIER
   and some that do not.  In such a case, one can think of the router as
   a "partial BFR" that supports BIER only on some of its interfaces.
   If it is desired to deploy such partial BFRs, one can use the
   multi-topology features of the IGP to set up a BIER-specific
   topology.  This topology would exclude all the non-BIER-capable
   interfaces that attach to BFRs.  BIER would then have to be run in a
   sub-domain that is bound to this topology.  If unicast tunnels are
   used to bypass non-BFRs, either (a) the tunnels have to be restricted
   to this topology or (b) the tunnel endpoints have to be BFRs that do
   not have any non-BIER-capable interfaces.



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 32]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.10.  Use of Different BitStringLengths within a Domain

   The procedures of this section apply only when the same encapsulation
   is used throughout the BIER domain.  Consideration of the scenario
   where both multiple encapsulations and multiple BitStringLengths are
   used in a given BIER domain is outside the scope of this document.

   It is possible for different BFRs within a BIER domain to be using
   different Imposition and/or Disposition BitStringLengths.  As stated
   in Section 3:

   "if a particular BFIR is provisioned to use a particular Imposition
   BitStringLength and a particular Imposition sub-domain when imposing
   the encapsulation on a given set of packets, all other BFRs with
   BFR-ids in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned to process received
   BIER packets with that BitStringLength (i.e., all other BFRs with
   BFR-ids in that sub-domain SHOULD be provisioned with that
   BitStringLength as a Disposition BitStringLength for that
   sub-domain)."

   Note that mis-provisioning can result in "black holes".  If a BFIR
   creates a BIER packet with a particular BitStringLength and if that
   packet needs to travel through a BFR that cannot process received
   BIER packets with that BitStringLength, then it may be impossible to
   forward the packet to all of the BFERs identified in its BIER header.
   Section 6.10.1 defines a procedure, the "BitStringLength
   Compatibility Check", that can be used to detect the possibility of
   such black holes.

   However, failure of the BitStringLength Compatibility Check does not
   necessarily result in the creation of black holes; Section 6.10.2
   specifies OPTIONAL procedures that allow BIER forwarding to proceed
   without black holes, even if the BitStringLength Compatibility Check
   fails.

   If the procedures of Section 6.10.2 are not deployed but the
   BitStringLength Compatibility Check fails at some BFIR, the BFIR has
   two choices:

   o  Create BIER packets with the provisioned Imposition
      BitStringLength, even though the packets may not be able to reach
      all the BFERs identified in their BitStrings.

   o  Use an Imposition BitStringLength that passes the Compatibility
      Check (assuming that there is one), even if this is not the
      provisioned Imposition BitStringLength.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 33]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   Section 6.10.1 discusses the implications of making one or the other
   of these choices.

   There will be times when an operator wishes to change the
   BitStringLengths used in a particular BIER domain.  Section 6.10.3
   specifies a simple procedure that can be used to transition a BIER
   domain from one BitStringLength to another.

6.10.1.  BitStringLength Compatibility Check

   When a BFIR needs to encapsulate a packet, the BFIR first assigns the
   packet to a sub-domain.  The BFIR then chooses an Imposition
   BitStringLength L for the packet.  The choice of Imposition
   BitStringLength is determined by provisioning.  However, the BFIR
   should also perform the BitStringLength Compatibility Check defined
   below.

   The combination of sub-domain S and Imposition BitStringLength L
   passes the BitStringLength Compatibility Check if and only if the
   following condition holds:

      Every BFR that has advertised its membership in sub-domain S has
      also advertised that it is using Disposition BitStringLength L
      (and possibly other BitStringLengths as well) in that sub-domain.
      (If MPLS encapsulation (Section 2.1 of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]) is
      being used, this means that every BFR that is advertising a label
      for sub-domain S is advertising a label for the combination of
      sub-domain S and Disposition BitStringLength L.)

   If a BFIR has been provisioned to use a particular Imposition
   BitStringLength and a particular sub-domain for some set of packets,
   and if that combination of Imposition BitStringLength and sub-domain
   does not pass the BitStringLength Compatibility Check, the BFIR
   SHOULD log this fact as an error.  It then has the following two
   choices about what to do with the packets:

   1.  The BFIR MAY use the provisioned Imposition BitStringLength
       anyway.  If the procedure of either option 2 or option 3 of
       Section 6.10.2 is deployed, this will not cause black holes and
       may actually be the optimal result.  It should be understood,
       though, that the BFIR cannot determine by signaling whether those
       procedures have been deployed.

   2.  If the BFIR is capable of using an Imposition BitStringLength
       that does pass the BitStringLength Compatibility Check for the
       particular sub-domain, the BFIR MAY use that Imposition
       BitStringLength instead.




Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 34]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   Which of these two choices to make is itself determined by
   provisioning.

   Note that discarding the packets is not one of the allowable choices.
   Suppose, for example, that all the BFIRs are provisioned to use
   Imposition BitStringLength L for a particular sub-domain S but one
   BFR has not been provisioned to use Disposition BitStringLength L for
   sub-domain S.  This will cause the BitStringLength Compatibility
   Check to fail.  If the BFIR sends packets with BitStringLength L and
   sub-domain S, the mis-provisioned BFR will not be able to forward
   those packets, and thus the packets may only be able to reach a
   subset of the BFERs to which they are destined.  However, this is
   still better than having the BFIRs drop the packets; if the BFIRs
   discard the packets, the packets won't reach any of the BFERs to
   which they are destined at all.

   If the procedures of Section 6.10.2 have not been deployed, choice 2
   above might seem like a better option.  However, there might not be
   any Imposition BitStringLength that a given BFIR can use that also
   passes the BitStringLength Compatibility Check.  If it is desired to
   use choice 2 in a particular deployment, then there should be a
   "Fallback Disposition BitStringLength" (call it "F") such that:

   o  Every BFR advertises that it uses BitStringLength F as a
      Disposition BitStringLength for every sub-domain, and

   o  If a BFIR is provisioned to use Imposition BitStringLength X and
      Imposition sub-domain S for a certain class of packets but the
      BitStringLength Compatibility Check fails for the combination of
      BitStringLength X and sub-domain S, then the BFIR will fall back
      to using BitStringLength F as the Imposition BitStringLength
      whenever the Imposition sub-domain is S.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the value of F be the default BitStringLength
   for the encapsulation being used.
















Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 35]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


6.10.2.  Handling BitStringLength Mismatches

   Suppose that a packet has been BIER-encapsulated with a
   BitStringLength value of X and that the packet has arrived at BFR-A.
   Now suppose that according to the routing underlay the next hop is
   BFR-B, but BFR-B is not using X as one of its Disposition
   BitStringLengths.  What should BFR-A do with the packet?  BFR-A has
   three options.  It MUST do one of the three, but the choice of which
   procedure to follow is a local matter.  The three options are:

   1.  BFR-A MAY discard the packet.

   2.  BFR-A MAY re-encapsulate the packet, using a BIER header whose
       BitStringLength value is supported by BFR-B.

       Note that if BFR-B only uses Disposition BitStringLength values
       that are smaller than the BitStringLength value of the packet,
       this may require creating additional copies of the packet.
       Whether additional copies actually have to be created depends
       upon the bits that are actually set in the original packet's
       BitString.

   3.  BFR-A MAY treat BFR-B as if BFR-B did not support BIER at all,
       in which case BFR-A applies the rules of Section 6.9.

   Note that there is no signaling that enables a BFR to advertise which
   of the three options it will use.

   Option 2 can be useful if there is a region of the BIER domain where
   the BFRs are capable of using a long BitStringLength as well as a
   region where the BFRs are only capable of using a shorter
   BitStringLength.

6.10.3.  Transitioning from One BitStringLength to Another

   Suppose one wants to migrate the BitStringLength used in a particular
   BIER domain from one value (X) to another value (Y).  The following
   migration procedure can be used.  This procedure allows the BFRs to
   be reprovisioned one at a time and does not require a "flag day".

   1.  Upgrade all the BFRs in the domain so that they use both value X
       and value Y as their Disposition BitStringLengths.

   2.  Reprovision the BFIRs so that they use BitStringLength value Y as
       the Imposition BitStringLength.

   3.  One may then optionally reprovision all the BFRs so that they no
       longer use Disposition BitStringLength X.



Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 36]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


7.  Operational Considerations

   BIER offers a radical simplification over current IP multicast
   operations: no tree-building control plane, no per-flow forwarding
   state, no Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF), no Rendezvous Point (RP),
   etc.  BIER packet forwarding/replication is along the unicast paths
   to each bit position set in the packet, ensuring that the
   encapsulated multicast packets follow the same path as unicast to
   each set bit in the header.  The BIER FIB can be derived from the
   SPF-calculated unicast FIB or from any other forwarding-path
   calculation in or out of band.  Each bit will follow this unicast
   path from the entry point of the BIER domain to the edge device with
   that assigned bit.

   Due to these differences, operational expectations from traditional
   multicast solutions do not apply to a BIER domain.  There is no
   granular per-flow state at each node defining a tree.  Monitoring
   flows at the forwarding-plane level ((S,G) entries) is not provided
   in a BIER node.  BIER FIB packet counters may be maintained for
   BFR-ids or next-hop neighbors.  Any flow-based metrics will require
   deeper packet inspection; this topic is outside the scope of this
   document.  In this way, BIER is again more like unicast.

   It is this reduction in state that allows for one of the key
   operational benefits of BIER: deterministic convergence.  The BIER
   FIB can converge immediately after the unicast FIB regardless of how
   many multicast flows are transiting the links.  Careful monitoring of
   (S,G) utilization is not required within a BIER domain.

7.1.  Configuration

   A BIER domain requires that each edge node (BFER) be given a unique
   bit position in the BIER mask (BFR-id).  The BFR-id must be
   configured on each BFER and associated with a unique IP address of
   that BFER.  Any existing manual or automated configuration tools must
   provide access to BIER-specific configuration.  The association of
   the BFR-id with a unique address of the BFER to which it is assigned
   must also be advertised into the IGP of the BIER domain.  This may be
   implied from the BIER configuration or require IGP-specific
   configuration.  This document does not dictate any specific
   configuration methodology.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.






Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 37]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


9.  Security Considerations

   When BIER is paired with a particular multicast flow overlay, it
   inherits the security considerations of that layer.  Similarly, when
   BIER is paired with a particular routing underlay, it inherits the
   security considerations of that layer.

   If the BIER encapsulation of a particular packet specifies an SI or a
   BitString other than the one intended by the BFIR, the packet is
   likely to be misdelivered.  If the BIER encapsulation of a packet is
   modified (through error or malfeasance) in a way other than that
   specified in this document, the packet may be misdelivered.  Some
   modifications of the BIER encapsulation, e.g., setting every bit in
   the BitString, may result in (intentional or unintentional)
   denial-of-service (DoS) attacks.

   If a BFIR is compromised, it may impose a BIER encapsulation with all
   the bits in the BitString set; this would also result in a DoS
   attack.

   Every BFR MUST be provisioned to know which of its interfaces lead to
   a BIER domain and which do not.  BIER-encapsulated packets MUST NOT
   be accepted from outside the BIER domain.  (Reception of
   BIER-encapsulated packets from outside the BIER domain would create
   an attack vector for DoS attacks, as an attacker might set all the
   bits in the BitString.)

   If two interfaces lead to different BIER domains, the BFR MUST be
   provisioned to know that those two interfaces lead to different BIER
   domains.  If the provisioning is not correct, BIER-encapsulated
   packets from one BIER domain may "leak" into another; this is likely
   to result in misdelivery of packets.

   DoS attacks may also result from incorrect provisioning (through
   error or malfeasance) of the BFRs.

   If the procedures used for advertising BFR-ids and BFR-prefixes are
   not secure, an attack on those procedures may result in incorrect
   delivery of BIER-encapsulated packets.












Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 38]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


10.  References

10.1.  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>.

   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.

   [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>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [BGP_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
              Xu, X., Ed., Chen, M., Patel, K., Wijnands, IJ., and A.
              Przygienda, "BGP Extensions for BIER", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-03, August 2017.

   [BIER_MVPN]
              Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Aldrin, S., Dolganow, A.,
              and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using BIER", Work in
              Progress, draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-09, November 2017.

   [Boivie_Feldman]
              Boivie, R. and N. Feldman, "Small Group Multicast", Work
              in Progress, draft-boivie-sgm-02, February 2001.

   [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
              Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, A., Aldrin, S., and J.
              Zhang, "BIER Support via ISIS", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06, October 2017.

   [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]
              Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS
              Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-bier-mpls-
              encapsulation-12, October 2017.





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 39]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
              Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
              for BIER", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-
              extensions-09, October 2017.

   [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>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Rajiv Asati, Alia Atlas, John Bettink, Ross
   Callon (who contributed much of the text on deterministic ECMP),
   Nagendra Kumar, Christian Martin, Neale Ranns, Albert Tian, Ramji
   Vaithianathan, Xiaohu Xu, and Jeffrey Zhang for their ideas and
   contributions to this work.

   The authors also wish to thank Sue Hares, Victor Kuarsingh, and Dan
   Romascanu for their reviews of this document.


























Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 40]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


Contributors

   The following people contributed significantly to the content of this
   document and should be considered co-authors:

   Gregory Cauchie
   Bouygues Telecom
   Email: gcauchie@bouyguestelecom.fr

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Arkadiy Gulko
   Thomson Reuters
   195 Broadway
   New York, NY  10007
   United States of America
   Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp  2018
   Belgium
   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   Muenster  48153
   Germany
   Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de

   Luay Jalil
   Verizon
   1201 East Arapaho Rd.
   Richardson, TX  75081
   United States of America
   Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com

   Uwe Joorde
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   Muenster  D-48153
   Germany
   Email: Uwe.Joorde@telekom.de




Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 41]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


   Greg Shepherd
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   United States of America
   Email: shep@cisco.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com










































Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 42]

RFC 8279                   Multicast with BIER             November 2017


Authors' Addresses

   IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: ice@cisco.com


   Eric C. Rosen (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, Massachusetts  01886
   United States of America

   Email: erosen@juniper.net


   Andrew Dolganow
   Nokia
   438B Alexandra Rd #08-07/10
   Alexandra Technopark
   Singapore  119968
   Singapore

   Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com


   Tony Przygienda
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, California  94089
   United States of America

   Email: prz@juniper.net


   Sam K. Aldrin
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, California  94043
   United States of America

   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com





Wijnands, et al.              Experimental                     [Page 43]

