draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-13.txt		draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-14.txt
	MBONED Working Group P. Tarapore, Ed.		MBONED Working Group P. Tarapore, Ed.
	Internet-Draft R. Sayko		Internet-Draft R. Sayko
	Intended status: Best Current Practice AT&T		Intended status: Best Current Practice AT&T
	Expires: April 30, 2018 G. Shepherd		Expires: May 3, 2018 G. Shepherd
	Cisco		Cisco
	T. Eckert, Ed.		T. Eckert, Ed.
	Huawei		Huawei
	R. Krishnan		R. Krishnan
	SupportVectors		SupportVectors
	October 27, 2017		October 30, 2017
	Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points		Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points
	draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-13		draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-14
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)		This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
	across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment		across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
	scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for		scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
	multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these		multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
	scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this		scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
	process.		process.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 41 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 8, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 11 ¶
	the scope of this document.		the scope of this document.
	Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:		Architectural guidelines for this configuration are as follows:
	a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended as		a. Dual homing for peering points between domains is recommended as
	a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.		a way to ensure reliability with full BGP table visibility.
	b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled		b. If the peering point between AD-1 and AD-2 is a controlled
	network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly		network environment, then bandwidth can be allocated accordingly
	by the two domains to permit the transit of non- rate adaptive		by the two domains to permit the transit of non- rate adaptive
	multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then it is		multicast traffic. If this is not the case, then the multicast
	recommended that the multicast traffic should support rate-		traffic must support rate-adaption (see [BCP145]).
	adaption.
	c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two		c. The sending and receiving of multicast traffic between two
	domains is typically determined by local policies associated with		domains is typically determined by local policies associated with
	each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider and AD-2		each domain. For example, if AD-1 is a service provider and AD-2
	is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies for		is an enterprise, then AD-1 may support local policies for
	traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2.		traffic delivery to, but not traffic reception from, AD-2.
	Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers		Another example is the use of a policy by which AD-1 delivers
	specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted		specified content to AD-2 only if such delivery has been accepted
	by contract.		by contract.
	skipping to change at page 37, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 37, line 41 ¶
	Joel Jaeggli		Joel Jaeggli
	Albert Manfredi		Albert Manfredi
	Stig Venaas		Stig Venaas
	Henrik Levkowetz		Henrik Levkowetz
	10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]		10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
	Please see discussion on mailing list for changes before -111.		Please see discussion on mailing list for changes before -11.
	-11: version in IESG review.		-11: version in IESG review.
	-12: XML'ified version of -11, committed solely to make rfcdiff		-12: XML'ified version of -11, committed solely to make rfcdiff
	easier. XML versions hosted on https://www.github.com/toerless/		easier. XML versions hosted on https://www.github.com/toerless/
	peering-bcp		peering-bcp
	-13:		-13:
	o IESG feedback. Complete details in:		o IESG feedback. Complete details in:
	skipping to change at page 39, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 39, line 18 ¶
	o Spencer Dawkins: Various editorial fixes. Removed BCP38 text from		o Spencer Dawkins: Various editorial fixes. Removed BCP38 text from
	section 3, superceeded be explanation of PIM-SM RPF check to		section 3, superceeded be explanation of PIM-SM RPF check to
	provide equvialent security to BCP38 in security section 7.1).		provide equvialent security to BCP38 in security section 7.1).
	o Eric Roscorla: (fixed from other reviews already).		o Eric Roscorla: (fixed from other reviews already).
	o Adam Roach: Fixed up text about MDH-04, added reference to		o Adam Roach: Fixed up text about MDH-04, added reference to
	RFC4786.		RFC4786.
			-13: Fix for Mirja's review on must for congestion control.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.		[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
	Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,		Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
	[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.		[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	8 lines changed or deleted		9 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/