Diff: rfc9081xml2.original.xml

	rfc9081xml2.original.xml	rfc9081.xml

	<?xml version="1.1" encoding="US-ASCII"?>	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
	<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC	<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
	.2119.xml">
	<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC	<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" category="
	.8174.xml">	std" consensus="true" updates="6514" docName="draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-inter
	<!ENTITY RFC6513 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC	operation-08" number="9081" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en" tocIncl
	.6513.xml">	ude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
	<!ENTITY RFC6514 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC
	.6514.xml">	<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.8.0 -->
	<!ENTITY RFC3618 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC
	.3618.xml">
	<!ENTITY RFC7716 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC
	.7716.xml">
	<!ENTITY RFC2764 SYSTEM "http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC
	.2764.xml">
	]>
	<?rfc toc="yes"?>
	<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
	<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
	<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
	<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
	<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
	<?rfc strict="no"?>
	<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
	<?rfc comments="yes"?>
	<?rfc inline="yes"?>
	<?rfc compact="yes"?>
	<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
	<rfc category="std" updates="6514" docName="draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interop
	eration-08" ipr="trust200902">
	<front>	<front>

	<title abbrev="mvpn-sa-msdp">MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation</title>


		<title abbrev="MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation">Interoperation between Multi
		cast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) and Multicast Source Directory Protocol (MSD
		P) Source-Active Routes</title>
		<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9081"/>
	<author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang">	<author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang">
	<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>	<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
	<address>	<address>
	<email>zzhang@juniper.net</email>	<email>zzhang@juniper.net</email>
	</address>	</address>
	</author>	</author>


	<author fullname="Lenny Giuliano" initials="L." surname="Giuliano">	<author fullname="Lenny Giuliano" initials="L." surname="Giuliano">
	<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>	<organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
	<address>	<address>
	<email>lenny@juniper.net</email>	<email>lenny@juniper.net</email>
	</address>	</address>
	</author>	</author>

		<date year="2021" month="July"/>
	<date year="2021"/>

	<workgroup>BESS</workgroup>	<workgroup>BESS</workgroup>

	<abstract>	<abstract>
	<t>This document specifies the procedures for interoperation between	<t>This document specifies the procedures for interoperation between

	Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) Source Active routes and	Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) Source-Active (SA) routes and
	customer Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Source Active routes,	customer Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) SA routes,
	which is useful for MVPN provider networks offering services to	which is useful for MVPN provider networks offering services to

	customers with an existing MSDP infrastructure. Without the procedures	customers with an existing MSDP infrastructure.
		Without the procedures
	described in this document, VPN-specific MSDP sessions are required	described in this document, VPN-specific MSDP sessions are required

	among the PEs that are customer MSDP peers. This document updates	among the Provider Edge (PE) routers that are customer MSDP peers. This
	RFC6514.	document updates RFC 6514.
	</t>	</t>
	</abstract>	</abstract>

	<note title="Requirements Language">
	<t> 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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
	target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.
	</t>
	</note>
	</front>	</front>


	<middle>	<middle>

	<section title="Terminologies">	<section numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>Familiarity with MVPN <xref target="RFC6513"/> <xref target="RFC6514"/> a	<name>Introduction</name>
	nd MSDP <xref target="RFC3618"/> protocols and procedures is assumed.	<t>Section <xref target="RFC6514" section="14" sectionFormat="bare"> "Supp
	Some terminologies are listed below for convenience.	orting
	<list style="symbols">	PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees"</xref> of
	<t>ASM: Any source multicast.	<xref target="RFC6514"/> specifies the procedures for MVPN PEs to discove
	</t>	r (C-S,C-G)
	<t>SPT: Source-specific Shortest-path Tree.	via MVPN Source-Active A-D routes and then send Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G
	</t>	) C-multicast
	<t>RPT: Rendezvous Point Tree.	routes towards the ingress PEs to establish shortest path trees (SPTs) fo
	</t>	r customer Any-Source Multicast (ASM) flows
	<t>C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
	located at a VPN customer site.
	</t>
	<t>C-G: A multicast group address used by a VPN customer.
	</t>
	<t>C-RP: A multicast Rendezvous Point for a VPN customer.
	</t>
	<t>C-Multicast: Multicast for a VPN customer.
	</t>
	<t>EC: Extended Community.
	</t>
	<t>GTM: Global Table Multicast, i.e., multicast in the default or global
	routing table vs. VRF table.
	</t>
	</list>
	</t>
	</section>
	<section title="Introduction">
	<t>Section "14. Supporting PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees" of
	[RFC6514] specifies the procedures for MVPN PEs to discover (C-S,C-G)
	via MVPN Source Active A-D routes and then send Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G
	) C-multicast
	routes towards the ingress PEs, to establish SPTs for customer ASM flows
	for which they have downstream receivers.	for which they have downstream receivers.

	(C-*,C-G) C-multicast routes are not sent among the PEs so inter-site	(C-*,C-G) C-multicast routes are not sent among the PEs, so inter-site
	shared C-Trees are not used and the method is generally referred to as	shared C-Trees are not used, and the method is generally referred to as
	"spt-only" mode.	"spt-only" mode.

	</t>	</t>
	<t>With this mode, the MVPN Source Active routes are functionally similar to	<t>With this mode, the MVPN Source-Active routes are functionally similar
		to
	MSDP Source-Active messages. For a VPN,	MSDP Source-Active messages. For a VPN,
	one or more of the PEs, say PE1,	one or more of the PEs, say PE1,

	either acts as a C-RP and learns of (C-S,C-G) via PIM Register messages,	either acts as a C-RP and learns of (C-S,C-G) via PIM Register messages
	or has MSDP sessions with some MSDP peers and learn (C-S,C-G) via	or has MSDP sessions with some MSDP peers and learns of (C-S,C-G) via
	MSDP SA messages. In either case, PE1 will then originate MVPN SA	MSDP SA messages. In either case, PE1 will then originate MVPN SA

	routes for other PEs to learn the (C-S,C-G).	routes for other PEs to learn (C-S,C-G).
	</t>	</t>
	<t>[RFC6514] only specifies that a PE receiving the MVPN SA routes,	<t><xref target="RFC6514"/> only specifies that a PE receiving the MVPN SA
		routes,
	say PE2, will advertise Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes if it has	say PE2, will advertise Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes if it has

	corresponding (C-*,C-G) state learnt from its CE. PE2 may also have MSDP	corresponding (C-*,C-G) state learnt from its Customer Edge (CE). PE2 may also have MSDP
	sessions for the VPN with other C-RPs at its site, but	sessions for the VPN with other C-RPs at its site, but

	[RFC6514] does not specify that PE2 advertises MSDP SA messages to those	<xref target="RFC6514"/> does not specify that PE2 advertises MSDP SA mes sages to those
	MSDP peers for the (C-S,C-G) that it learns via MVPN SA routes.	MSDP peers for the (C-S,C-G) that it learns via MVPN SA routes.
	PE2 would need to have an MSDP session with PE1 (that advertised the	PE2 would need to have an MSDP session with PE1 (that advertised the

	MVPN SA messages) to learn the sources via MSDP SA messages, for it to	MVPN SA messages) to learn the sources via MSDP SA messages for it to
	advertise the MSDP SA to its local peers. To make things worse, unless	advertise the MSDP SA to its local peers. To make things worse, unless
	blocked by policy control, PE2 would in turn advertise MVPN SA routes	blocked by policy control, PE2 would in turn advertise MVPN SA routes
	because of those MSDP SA messages that it receives from PE1, which are	because of those MSDP SA messages that it receives from PE1, which are
	redundant and unnecessary. Also notice that the PE1-PE2 MSDP	redundant and unnecessary. Also notice that the PE1-PE2 MSDP

	session is VPN-specific (i.e., only for a single VPN),	session is VPN specific (i.e., only for a single VPN),
	while the BGP sessions over which the MVPN	while the BGP sessions over which the MVPN
	routes are advertised are not.	routes are advertised are not.

	</t>	</t>
	<t>If a PE does advertise MSDP SA messages based on received MVPN SA	<t>If a PE does advertise MSDP SA messages based on received MVPN SA
	routes, the VPN-specific MSDP sessions with other PEs are no longer neede d.	routes, the VPN-specific MSDP sessions with other PEs are no longer neede d.
	Additionally, this MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation has the following	Additionally, this MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation has the following

	inherent benefits for a BGP based solution.	inherent benefits for a BGP-based solution.
	<list style="symbols">	</t>
	<t>MSDP SA refreshes are replaced with BGP hard state.	<ul spacing="normal">
	</t>	<li>MSDP SA refreshes are replaced with BGP hard state.
	<t>Route Reflectors can be used instead of having peer-to-peer session	</li>
	s.	<li>Route reflectors can be used instead of having peer-to-peer sessions
	</t>	.
	<t>VPN Extranet <xref target="RFC2764"/> mechanisms can be used to pro	</li>
	pagate (C-S,C-G)	<li>VPN extranet <xref target="RFC2764" format="default"/> mechanisms ca
		n be used to propagate (C-S,C-G)
	information across VPNs with flexible policy control.	information across VPNs with flexible policy control.

	</t>	</li>
	</list>	</ul>
	</t>	<t>While MSDP Source-Active routes contain the
	<t>While MSDP Source Active routes contain the	source, group, and RP addresses of a given multicast flow, MVPN Source-Active
	source, group and RP addresses of a given multicast flow, MVPN Source Active
	routes only contain the source and group. MSDP requires the RP address	routes only contain the source and group. MSDP requires the RP address

	information in order to perform MSDP peer-RPF. Therefore, this document	information in order to perform MSDP peer Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF). Theref
	describes how to convey the RP address information into the MVPN Source	ore, this document
	Active route using an Extended Community so this information can be shared	describes how to convey the RP address information into the MVPN Source-Active
		route using an Extended Community so this information can be shared
	with an existing MSDP infrastructure.	with an existing MSDP infrastructure.

	</t>	</t>
	<t>The procedures apply to Global Table Multicast (GTM) [RFC7716] as well.	<t>The procedures apply to Global Table Multicast (GTM) <xref target="RFC7
	</t>	716" format="default"/> as well.
	<section title="MVPN RPT-SPT Mode">	</t>
	<t>For comparison, another method of supporting customer ASM is generally	<section numbered="true" toc="default">
	referred to as "rpt-spt" mode. Section "13. Switching from a Shared	<name>MVPN RPT-SPT Mode</name>
	C-Tree to a Source C-Tree" of [RFC6514] specifies the MVPN SA procedures	<t>For comparison, another method of supporting customer ASM is generall
		y
		referred to as "rpt-spt" mode. Section <xref target="RFC6514" section="13
		"
		sectionFormat="bare">"Switching from a Shared
		C-Tree to a Source C-Tree"</xref> of <xref target="RFC6514"/> specifies t
		he MVPN SA procedures
	for that mode, but those SA routes are a replacement for PIM-ASM	for that mode, but those SA routes are a replacement for PIM-ASM
	assert and (s,g,rpt) prune mechanisms, not for source discovery purposes.	assert and (s,g,rpt) prune mechanisms, not for source discovery purposes.
	MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation for the "rpt-spt" mode is outside the scope	MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation for the "rpt-spt" mode is outside the scope
	of this document. In the rest of the document, the "spt-only" mode is	of this document. In the rest of the document, the "spt-only" mode is
	assumed.	assumed.

	</t>	</t>
		</section>
	</section>	</section>

		<section numbered="true" toc="default">
		<name>Terminology</name>
		<t>Familiarity with MVPN <xref target="RFC6513" format="default"/> <xref t
		arget="RFC6514" format="default"/> and MSDP <xref target="RFC3618" format="defau
		lt"/> protocols and procedures is assumed.
		Some terminology is listed below for convenience.
		</t>
		<dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="14">
		<dt>ASM:</dt>
		<dd>Any-Source Multicast</dd>
		<dt>SPT:</dt>
		<dd>source-specific Shortest Path Tree</dd>
		<dt>RPT:</dt>
		<dd>Rendezvous Point Tree</dd>
		<dt>C-S:</dt>
		<dd>a multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
		located at a VPN customer site</dd>
		<dt>C-G:</dt>
		<dd>a multicast group address used by a VPN customer</dd>
		<dt>C-RP:</dt>
		<dd>a multicast Rendezvous Point for a VPN customer</dd>
		<dt>C-multicast:</dt>
		<dd>a multicast for a VPN customer</dd>
		<dt>EC:</dt>
		<dd>Extended Community</dd>
		<dt>GTM:</dt>
		<dd>Global Table Multicast, i.e., a multicast in the default or global
		routing table vs. a VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) table</dd>
		</dl>
		<section>
		<name>Requirements Language</name>
		<t> The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp1
		4>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
		NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<
		bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
		"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document a
		re to be interpreted as
		described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref ta
		rget="RFC8174" format="default"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
		capitals, as shown here.
		</t>
		</section>
	</section>	</section>

	<section title="Specification">	<section numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP sessions	<name>Specification</name>
		<t>The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP sessions
	in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as an MSDP	in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as an MSDP
	mesh group for that VPN (or the global table). In the rest of the	mesh group for that VPN (or the global table). In the rest of the
	document, it is referred to as the PE mesh group. This PE mesh group	document, it is referred to as the PE mesh group. This PE mesh group

	MUST NOT include other MSDP speakers, and is integrated	<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include other MSDP speakers and is integrated
	into the rest of MSDP infrastructure for the VPN (or the global table)	into the rest of the MSDP infrastructure for the VPN (or the global table
		)
	following normal MSDP rules and practices.	following normal MSDP rules and practices.

	</t>	</t>
	<t>When an MVPN PE advertises an MVPN SA route following procedures in	<t>When an MVPN PE advertises an MVPN SA route following procedures in
	[RFC6514] for the "spt-only" mode,	<xref target="RFC6514"/> for the "spt-only" mode,
	it MUST attach an "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community". This	it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> attach an "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".
	is a Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community. The Local	This
	Administrative field is set to zero and the Global Administrative field	is a Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Extended Community.
		The Local
		Administrator field is set to zero, and the Global Administrator field
	is set to an RP address determined as the following:	is set to an RP address determined as the following:

	<list style="symbols">	</t>
	<t>If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as result of PIM Register	<ul spacing="normal">
		<li>If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as a result of the PIM Register
	mechanism, the local RP address for the C-G is used.	mechanism, the local RP address for the C-G is used.

	</t>	</li>
	<t>If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as result of incoming MSDP SA messages,	<li>If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as a result of incoming MSDP SA messages,
	the RP address in the selected MSDP SA message is used.	the RP address in the selected MSDP SA message is used.

	</t>	</li>
	</list>	</ul>
	</t>	<t>In addition to the procedures in <xref target="RFC6514"/>, an MVPN PE m
	<t>In addition to procedures in [RFC6514], an MVPN PE may be provisioned	ay be provisioned
	to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA routes, with or	to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA routes, with or
	without local policy control. If a received MVPN SA route triggers an	without local policy control. If a received MVPN SA route triggers an
	MSDP SA message, the MVPN SA route is treated as if a corresponding MSDP SA message	MSDP SA message, the MVPN SA route is treated as if a corresponding MSDP SA message
	was received from within the PE mesh group and normal MSDP procedure	was received from within the PE mesh group and normal MSDP procedure

	is followed (e.g. an MSDP SA message is advertised to other MSDP peers	is followed (e.g., an MSDP SA message is advertised to other MSDP peers
	outside the PE mesh group). The (S,G) information comes from the	outside the PE mesh group). The (S,G) information comes from the

	(C-S,C-G) encoding in the MVPN SA NLRI and the RP address comes from	(C-S,C-G) encoding in the MVPN SA Network Layer Reachability Information
		(NLRI), and the RP address comes from
	the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" mentioned above.	the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" mentioned above.
	If the received MVPN SA route does not have the EC (this could	If the received MVPN SA route does not have the EC (this could
	be from a legacy PE that does not have the capability to attach the EC),	be from a legacy PE that does not have the capability to attach the EC),
	the local RP address for the C-G is used. In that case,	the local RP address for the C-G is used. In that case,
	it is possible that the RP inserted into the MSDP SA message for the C-G is a ctually the MSDP peer	it is possible that the RP inserted into the MSDP SA message for the C-G is a ctually the MSDP peer
	to which the generated MSDP message is advertised, causing the peer to	to which the generated MSDP message is advertised, causing the peer to

	discard it due to RPF failure. To get around that problem the peer SHOULD	discard it due to RPF failure. To get around that problem, the peer <bcp14>SH OULD</bcp14>
	use local policy to accept the MSDP SA message.	use local policy to accept the MSDP SA message.

	</t>	</t>
	<t>An MVPN PE MAY treat only the best MVPN SA route selected by the BGP rout	<t>An MVPN PE <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> treat only the best MVPN SA route selecte
	e	d by the BGP route
	selection process (instead of all	selection process (instead of all
	MVPN SA routes) for a given (C-S,C-G) as a received MSDP SA message (and	MVPN SA routes) for a given (C-S,C-G) as a received MSDP SA message (and
	advertise the corresponding MSDP message). In that case, if the selected	advertise the corresponding MSDP message). In that case, if the selected
	best MVPN SA route does not have the "MVPN SA RP-address	best MVPN SA route does not have the "MVPN SA RP-address
	EC" but another route for the same (C-S, C-G) does, then the next	EC" but another route for the same (C-S, C-G) does, then the next

	best route with the EC SHOULD be chosen. As a result, when/if the	best route with the EC <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be chosen. As a result, if/ when the
	best MVPN SA route with the EC changes, a new MSDP SA message is	best MVPN SA route with the EC changes, a new MSDP SA message is
	advertised if the RP address determined according to the newly selected	advertised if the RP address determined according to the newly selected
	MVPN SA route is different from before. The MSDP SA state associated with	MVPN SA route is different from before. The MSDP SA state associated with
	the previously advertised MSDP SA message with the older RP address will be tim ed out.	the previously advertised MSDP SA message with the older RP address will be tim ed out.

	</t>	</t>
	</section>	</section>

	<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">	<section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
		<name>Security Considerations</name>
	<t>	<t>

	RFC6514 specifies the procedure for a PE to generate an MVPN SA upon	<xref target="RFC6514"/> specifies the procedure for a PE to generate an MVPN SA
	discovering a (C-S,C-G) flow (e.g. via a received MSDP SA message) in a VPN.	upon
	This document extends this capability in the reverse direction -	discovering a (C-S,C-G) flow (e.g., via a received MSDP SA message) in a VPN.
	upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN generate a	This document extends this capability in the reverse direction --
		upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN, generate a
	corresponding MSDP SA and advertise it to MSDP peers in the same VPN.	corresponding MSDP SA and advertise it to MSDP peers in the same VPN.
	As such, the capabilities specified in this document introduce no	As such, the capabilities specified in this document introduce no
	additional security considerations beyond those already specified in	additional security considerations beyond those already specified in

	RFC6514 and RFC3618. Moreover, the capabilities specified in this document	<xref target="RFC6514"/> and <xref target="RFC3618"/>. Moreover, the
		capabilities specified in this document
	actually eliminate the control message amplification that exists today	actually eliminate the control message amplification that exists today
	where VPN-specific MSDP sessions are required among the PEs that are	where VPN-specific MSDP sessions are required among the PEs that are
	customer MSDP peers, which lead to redundant messages (MSDP SAs and MVPN	customer MSDP peers, which lead to redundant messages (MSDP SAs and MVPN
	SAs) being carried in parallel between PEs.	SAs) being carried in parallel between PEs.
	</t>	</t>
	</section>	</section>

	<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="sarpec">	<section anchor="sarpec" numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific	<name>IANA Considerations</name>
	Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community".	<t>
	IANA has registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific	IANA registered the following in the "Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific Ext
	Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.	ended Community Sub-Types” registry:
	</t>	</t>

	</section>
	<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
	<t>The authors thank Eric Rosen and Vinod Kumar for their review, comments
	,
	questions and suggestions for this document. The authors also
	thank Yajun Liu for her review and comments.
	</t>
	</section>
	</middle>


	<back>	<table anchor="table_1">
	<references title="Normative References">	<name></name>
	&RFC2119;	<thead>
	&RFC8174;	<tr>
	&RFC6514;	<th>Value</th>
	&RFC3618;	<th>Description</th>
	</references>	</tr>
		</thead>
		<tbody>
		<tr>
		<td>0x20</td>
		<td>MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community</td>
		</tr>
		</tbody>
		</table>


	<references title="Informative References">	</section>
	&RFC7716;	</middle>
	&RFC2764;	<back>
	&RFC6513;	<references>
		<name>References</name>
		<references>
		<name>Normative References</name>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.2119.xml"/>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.8174.xml"/>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.6514.xml"/>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.3618.xml"/>
		</references>
		<references>
		<name>Informative References</name>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.7716.xml"/>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.2764.xml"/>
		<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
		FC.6513.xml"/>
		</references>
	</references>	</references>

		<section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="false" toc="default">
		<name>Acknowledgements</name>
		<t>The authors thank <contact fullname="Eric Rosen"/>,
		<contact fullname="Vinod Kumar"/>, <contact fullname="Yajun Liu"/>,
		<contact fullname="Stig Venaas"/>,
		<contact fullname="Mankamana Mishra"/>,
		<contact fullname="Gyan Mishra"/>, <contact fullname="Qin Wu"/>,
		and <contact fullname="Jia He"/> for their reviews, comments,
		questions, and suggestions for this document.
		</t>
		</section>
	</back>	</back>
	</rfc>	</rfc>

End of changes. 46 change blocks.
	182 lines changed or deleted	221 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/