<?xml version="1.1" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<?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" docName="draft-ietf-bier-evpn-09" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="bier-evpn">EVPN BUM Using BIER</title>

    <author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang" initials="Z." surname="Zhang">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>zzhang@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Antoni Przygienda" initials="A." surname="Przygienda">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>prz@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ali Sajassi" initials="A." surname="Sajassi">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>sajassi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jorge Rabadan" initials="J." surname="Rabadan">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>jorge.rabadan@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2023"/>

    <workgroup>BIER</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies protocols and procedures for forwarding
         broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic
         of Ethernet VPNs (EVPN) using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
      </t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.
      </t>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
    <t>[RFC7432] and <xref target='RFC8365'/> specify
       the protocols and procedures for Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs). For broadcast,
       unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic, provider/underlay tunnels
       (referred to as P-tunnels) are used to carry the BUM traffic. Several
       kinds of tunnel technologies can be used, as specified in [RFC7432].
    </t>
    <t>
   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
   (<xref target='RFC8279'/>) is an
   architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a
   "multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to
   maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building
   protocol.  The purpose of this document is to specify the
   protocols and procedures to transport EVPN BUM traffic using BIER.
    </t>
    <t>
       The EVPN BUM procedures specified in [RFC7432] and extended in <xref
       target='I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates'/>, <xref
       target='RFC9251'/>, and <xref
       target='I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements'/>
       are much aligned with Multicast VPN (MVPN) procedures <xref target="RFC6514"/>
	   and an EVPN Broadcast Domain corresponds to a VPN in MVPN.
	   As such, this document is also very much aligned with <xref target='RFC8556'/>.
       For terseness, some background, terms and concepts are not
       repeated here. Additionally, some text is borrowed verbatim from
       <xref target='RFC8556'/>.
    </t>
    <section title="Terminologies">
    <t>
       <list style="symbols">
          <t>BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router.</t>
          <t>BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.</t>
          <t>BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.</t>
          <t>BFR-Prefix: An IP address that uniquely identifies a BFR
             and is routable in a BIER domain.</t>
    <t>
          C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
          located at an EVPN customer site.
    </t>
    <t>
          C-G: A multicast group address used by an EVPN customer.
    </t>
    <t>
          C-flow: A customer multicast flow.  Each C-flow is identified by
          the ordered pair (source address, group address), where each
          address is in the customer's address space.  The identifier of a
          particular C-flow is usually written as (C-S, C-G).
          Sets of C-flows can be identified by the use of the "C-*" wildcard
          (see [RFC6625]), e.g., (C-*, C-G).
    </t>
    <t>
          P-tunnel.  A multicast tunnel through the network of one or more
          SPs.  P-tunnels are used to transport C-flows.
    </t>
    <t>
          IMET Route: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
          Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these
          routes are used to advertise the "default" P-tunnel for a
          particular broadcast domain.
    </t>
    <t>
          SMET Route: Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag
          Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these
          routes are used to advertise the C-flows that the advertising PE
          is interested in.
    </t>
    <t>
          S-PMSI A-D route: Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface
          Auto-Discovery route.  Carried in BGP Update messages, these
          routes are used to advertise the fact that particular C-flows are
          bound to (i.e., are traveling through) particular P-tunnels.
    </t>
    <t>
          PMSI Tunnel attribute (PTA): A BGP attribute used
          to identify a particular P-tunnel.
    </t>
       </list>
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute" anchor="pta">
    <t>[RFC7432] specifies that Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
       routes carry a PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) to identify the particular
       P-tunnel to which one or more BUM flows are being assigned, the same as
       specified in [RFC6514] for MVPN.
       <xref target='RFC8556'/> specifies the encoding of
       PTA for the use of BIER with MVPN. Much of that specification is reused
       for the use of BIER with EVPN and much of the text below is borrowed
       verbatim from <xref target='RFC8556'/>.
    </t>
    <t>The PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) contains the following fields:
    <list style="symbols">
      <t>"Tunnel Type". The same codepoint 0x0B that IANA has assigned for
	  BIER for MVPN <xref target='RFC8556'/> is used for EVPN as well.
       <!--The "composite tunnel" bit [RFC8317] of the type field can also be set.
       Its semantics are updated in
       [I-D.draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel]. In that case,
       the tunnel is referred to as a BIER composite tunnel. An example of its
       usage is provided in Section <xref target="ar"/> of this document.-->
    </t>
    <t>"Tunnel Identifier".  This field contains three subfields for BIER.
	  The text below is exactly as in
        <xref target='RFC8556'/>.
      <list style="format %d">
      <t>
       The first subfield is a single octet, containing the sub-
       domain-id of the sub-domain to which the BFIR will assign the
       packets that it transmits on the PMSI identified by the NLRI
       of the IMET, S-PMSI A-D, or per-region I-PMSI A-D route that contains this PTA.
       How that sub-domain is chosen is outside the scope of this
       document.
      </t>
    <t>   The second subfield is a two-octet field containing the
          BFR-id, in the sub-domain identified in the first subfield, of
          the router that is constructing the PTA.    </t>
      <t>
       The third subfield is the BFR-Prefix (see
       <xref target='RFC8279'/>) of the
       originator of the route that is carrying this PTA.  This will
       either be a /32 IPv4 address or a /128 IPv6 address.  Whether
       the address is IPv4 or IPv6 can be inferred from the total
       length of the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
                   <vspace/>
                   <vspace/>
          The BFR-prefix need not be the same IP address that is carried
          in any other field of the x-PMSI A-D route, even if the BFIR
          is the originating router of the x-PMSI A-D route.
      </t>
      </list>
      <!--If the "composite tunnel" bit is set, as specified in
      [I-D.draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel],
      a three-octet label field is added before the "Tunnel Identifier" field
      to indicate the IR label that this PE uses to receive IR traffic with.
      The three-octet label field after the Tunnel Type field is the label
      that this PE uses to send/receive BIER traffic with.-->
    </t>
    <t>"MPLS label".  For EVPN-MPLS [RFC7432], this field contains an upstream-assigned
       MPLS label.  It is assigned by the BFIR.  Constraints on how the originating router selects this label are discussed in
       <xref target="label"/>. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE
       <xref target='RFC8365'/>, this field is a 24-bit
       VNI/VSID of global significance.
    </t>
    <t>"Flags".  When the tunnel type is BIER, two of the flags in the
       PTA Flags field are meaningful.  Details about the use of these
       flags can be found in <xref target="tracking"/>.
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>"Leaf Info Required per Flow (LIR-pF)" <xref target="RFC8534"/>
    </t>
    <t>"Leaf Info Required Bit (LIR)"
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <!--t>"Auxiliary Information". This is optional, present if the total
    length of the PTA is larger then the sum of lengths of the fields before
    this one. It is in the form of a series of TLVs.
    </t-->
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>
   Note that if a PTA specifying "BIER" is attached to an IMET, S-PMSI A-D,
   or per-region I-PMSI A-D route, the route MUST NOT be distributed beyond the
   boundaries of a BIER domain.  That is, any routers that receive the
   route must be in the same BIER domain as the originator of the route.
   If the originator is in more than one BIER domain, the route must be
   distributed only within the BIER domain in which the BFR-Prefix in
   the PTA uniquely identifies the originator.  As with all MVPN routes,
   the distribution of these routes is controlled by the provisioning of
   Route Targets.
    </t>
    <!--section title = "Auxiliary Information">
    <t>For the "Auxiliary Information", one TLV is defined in this document - 
       Tunnel Encapsulation TLV. The value part of the TLV is a Tunnel TLV
       as defined in [RFC9012].
    </t>
    <t>This MAY be used when VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP header
       (and UDP header in the case of VXLAN/GENVE) is the BIER payload.
       Normally that is not needed with BIER, except when BIER PHP
       [I-D.ietf-bier-php] is used and the encapsulation (after BIER header is
       popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and the egress PE does not have
       a way to indicate the next header is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In that case
       the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP header MUST be
       used. The tunnel type (VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE), endpoint, and
       some tunnel specific information MAY be specified in the Tunnel TLV
       or MAY be provisioned on PEs.
       The tunnel endpoint MUST be an IP multicast address and the receiving
       egress PE MUST be set up to receive and process packets addressed to
       the address. The same multicast address can be used for
       all BDs, as the the inner VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used
       to identify BDs.
    </t>
    </section-->
    <section title="IP-Based Tunnel and BIER PHP" anchor="php-address">
    <t>When VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE is used for EVPN, by default the outer IP header
       (and UDP header in the case of VXLAN/GENVE) is not included in the BIER
       payload, except when it is known apriori that BIER PHP
       [I-D.ietf-bier-php] is used in the BIER domain and
       the encapsulation (after the BIER header is
       popped) between the BIER Penultimate Hop and the egress PE does not have
       a way to indicate the next header is VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE. In that case
       the full VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE encapsulation with an IP header MUST be
       included in the BIER payload. A well-known IP multicast address
       (to be assigned by IANA) is used as the destination address and the 
       egress PEs MUST be set up to receive and process packets addressed to
       the address. The address is used for all BDs and the inner
       VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header will be used to identify BDs.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Explicit Tracking" anchor="tracking">
    <t>
   When using BIER to transport an EVPN BUM data packet through a BIER
   domain, an ingress PE functions as a BFIR (see
   <xref target='RFC8279'/>).  The
   BFIR must determine the set of BFERs to which the packet needs to be
   delivered.  This can be done in either of two ways in the following
   two sections.
    </t>
    <section title="Using IMET/SMET routes">
    <t>Both IMET and SMET (Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag <xref
       target='RFC9251'/>) routes provide
       explicit tracking functionality.
    </t>
    <t>For an inclusive PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to includes
       the originators of all IMET routes for a broadcast domain. For a selective
       PMSI, the set of BFERs to deliver traffic to includes the originators
       of corresponding SMET routes.
    </t>
    <t>The SMET routes do not carry a PTA. When an ingress
       PE sends traffic on a selective tunnel using BIER, it uses the upstream-assigned label that is advertised in its IMET route.
    </t>
    <t>Only when selectively forwarding is for all flows without tunnel
       segmentation, SMET routes are used without the need for S-PMSI A-D routes.
       Otherwise, the procedures in the following section apply.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Using S-PMSI/Leaf A-D Routes">
    <t>There are two cases where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are used as discussed
       in the following two sections.
    </t>
    <section title="Selective Forwarding Only for Some Flows">
    <t>With the SMET procedure, a PE advertises an SMET route for each
      (C-S, C-G) or (C-*, C-G) state that it learns on its ACs, and each SMET
      route is tracked by every PE in the same broadcast domain. It may be desired
      that SMET routes are not used  to reduce the burden of explicit tracking.
    </t>
    <t>In this case, most multicast traffic will follow the I-PMSI (advertised
       via IMET route) and only some flows follow S-PMSIs. To achieve that,
       S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes can be used, as specified in <xref
       target='I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates'/>.
    </t>
    <t>The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2 of
       <xref target='RFC8556'/> apply.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Tunnel Segmentation">
    <t>Another case where S-PMSI/Leaf A-D routes are necessary is tunnel
       segmentation, which is also specified in <xref
       target='I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates'/>, and further
       clarified in
       <xref target='I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements'/> for
       segmentation with SMET routes. This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS.
    </t>
    <t>The rules specified in Section 2.2.1 of
       <xref target='RFC8556'/> apply. Section 2.2.2 of
       <xref target='RFC8556'/> does not apply, because
       like in MVPN, the LIR-pF flag cannot be used with
       segmentation.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Applicability of Additional MVPN Specifications">
    <t>As with the MVPN case, Section "3.  Use of the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
       in Leaf A-D routes" of <xref target='RFC8556'/> apply.
    </t>
    <t>Notice that, <xref target='RFC8556'/> refers to procedures
       specified in <xref target='RFC6625'/> and
       <xref target="RFC8534"/>. Those two documents
       were specified for MVPN but apply to IP multicast
       payload in EVPN as well.
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="MPLS Label in PTA" anchor="label">
    <t>Rules in section 2.1 of <xref target='RFC8556'/> apply,
       EXCEPT the following three bullets (they do NOT apply to EVPN) in that
       section:
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>
      If the two routes do not have the same Address Family Identifier
      (AFI) value, then their respective PTAs MUST contain different
      MPLS label values.  This ensures that when an egress PE receives a
      data packet with the given label, the egress PE can infer from the
      label whether the payload is an IPv4 packet or an IPv6 packet.
    </t>
    <t>
      If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting MVPN extranet ([RFC7900])
      functionality, and if the two routes originate from different VRFs
      on this ingress PE, then the respective PTAs of the two routes
      MUST contain different MPLS label values.
    </t>
    <t>
      If the BFIR is an ingress PE supporting the "Extranet Separation"
      feature of MVPN extranet (see Section 7.3 of [RFC7900]), and if
      one of the routes carries the "Extranet Separation" extended
      community but the other does not, then the respective PTAs of the
      two routes MUST contain different MPLS label values.
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Multihoming Split Horizon" anchor="multihoming">
    <t>For EVPN-MPLS, [RFC7432] specifies the use of ESI labels to identify
       the ES from which a BUM packet originates. A PE receiving that packet
       from the core side will not forward it to the same ES. The procedure
       works for both Ingress Replication (IR) and RSVP-TE/mLDP P2MP tunnels,
       using downstream- and upstream-assigned ESI labels respectively. For
       EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, <xref target='RFC8365'/> specifies local bias
       procedures, with which a PE receiving a BUM packet from the core
       side knows from encapsulation the ingress PE so it does not forward
       the packet to any multihoming ESes that the ingress PE is on, because
       the ingress PE already forwarded the packet to those ESes, regardless
       of whether the ingress PE is a DF for those ESes.
    </t>
    <t>With BIER, the local bias procedure still applies for EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE
       as the BFIR-id in the BIER header identifies the ingress PE.
       For EVPN-MPLS, ESI label procedures also still apply though two upstream-assigned labels will be used (one for identifying the broadcast domain
       and one for identifying the ES) - the same as in the case of using
       a single P2MP tunnel for multiple broadcast domains. The BFIR-id in
       the BIER header identifies the ingress PE that assigned those
       two labels.
    </t>
    </section>
    <!--section title = "Assisted Replication with BIER Composite Tunnel" anchor="ar">
    <t>With Assisted Replication (AR)
       <xref target="I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir"/> (with IP tunnels)
       an AR-leaf sends traffic to an AR-replicator via Ingress Replication (IR),
       who will then relay the traffic to other AR-leaf and AR-replicators.
       While the AR-replicator receives via IR the relay could be via BIER.
       An AR-leaf may not support BIER in the forwarding path but it could still
       advertise the support of BIER and rely on its upstream router to do
       Penultimate Hop Popping as described in
       <xref target="I-D.ietf-bier-php"/>.
       To support that scenario, the procedures in
       <xref target="I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir"/> are followed with the
       following modifications:
      <list style="symbols">
      <t>AR-replicators must support BIER in forwarding.
         It advertises a BIER tunnel in its IMET route with IR-IP as the
         Originating Router's IP Address, and advertises an AR tunnel in its
         IMET route with AR-IP as the Originating Router's IP Address.
      </t>
      <t>AR-leaves that can request BIER PHP advertise IMET route with a
         BIER composite tunnel.
      </t>
      <t>Traffic received by an AR-replicator with BIER encapsulation is not
         relayed.
      </t>
      <t>When there are Regular NVEs (RNVEs that only support the plain old
          procedures in [RFC7432]), the AR-replicator will relay traffic from
          RNVEs to AR-leaves that advertises BIER composite tunnel via BIER,
          and relay traffic from AR-leaves to RNVEs via IR.
          [question - do we need to elect an AR-replicator to relay traffic
          from RNVEs?]
      </t>
      </list>
    </t>
    <t>AR with MPLS tunnels, along with the usage of BIER composite tunnel,
       are specified in <xref target="I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub"/>.
    </t>
    </section-->
    <section title="Data Plane">
    <t>Like MVPN, the EVPN application plays the role of the "multicast
       flow overlay" as described in <xref target='RFC8279'/>. 
    </t>
    <section title="Encapsulation and Transmission">
    <t>A BFIR could be either an ingress PE or a P-tunnel segmentation point.
       The procedures are slightly different as described below.
    </t>
    <section title="At a BFIR that is an Ingress PE" anchor="ingresspe">
    <t>To transmit a BUM data packet, an ingress PE first determines the
       route matched for transmission and routes for tracking leaves according
       to the following rules.
    <list style="numbers">
    <t anchor="inclusive">If selective forwarding is not used, or it is not an IP Multicast packet
       after the ethernet header, the IMET route originated for the BD by the
       ingress PE is the route matched for transmission. Leaf tracking routes
       are all other received IMET routes for the BD.
    </t>
    <t>Otherwise, if selective forwarding is used for all IP Multicast traffic
       based on SMET routes, the IMET route originated for the BD by the ingress
       PE is the route matched for transmission. Received SMET
       routes for the BD that best match the source and destination IP address
       are leaf tracking routes.
    </t>
    <t>Otherwise, the route matched for transmission is the S-PMSI A-D route
       originated by the ingress PE for the BD,
       which best matches the packet's source and
       destination IP address and has a PTA specifying a valid tunnel type that
       is not "no tunnel info". Leaf tracking routes are determined
       as follows:
        <list style="format %d)">
        <t>If the match for transmission route carries a  PTA that has the LIR
           flag set but does not have the LIR-pF flag set, the routes matched for
           tracking are Leaf A-D routes whose "route key" field is identical to
           the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D route.
        </t>
        <t>If the match for transmission route carries a PTA that has the LIR-pF
           flag, the leaf tracking routes are Leaf A-D routes whose
           "route key" field is derived from the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D
           route according to the procedures described in Section 5.2 of
           <xref target="RFC8534"/>.
        </t>
        </list>
                       <vspace/>
                       <vspace/>
           Note that in both cases, SMET routes may be used in lieu of
           Leaf A-D routes, as a PE may omit the Leaf A-D route in response to
           an S-PMSI A-D route with LIR or LIR-pF bit set, if an SMET route
           with the corresponding Tag, Source, and Group fields is already
           originated <xref target='I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates'/>.
           In particular, in the second case above, even though the SMET route
           does not have a PTA attached, it is still considered as a Leaf A-D
           route in response to a wildcard S-PMSI A-D route with the LIR-pF bit
           set.
    </t>
    <t>Otherwise, the route matched for transmission and leaf tracking routes are
       determined as in rule <xref target="inclusive" format="counter"/>.
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>If no route is matched for transmission, the packet is not forwarded
       onto a P-tunnel. If the tunnel that the ingress determines to use
       based on the route matched for transmission (and considering
       interworking with PEs that do not support certain tunnel types
       per procedures in <xref target="RFC9251"/>)
       requires leaf tracking (e.g. Ingress Replication, RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel,
       or BIER) but there are no leaf tracking routes,
       the packet will not be forwarded onto a P-tunnel either.
    </t>
    <t>The following text assumes that BIER is the determined tunnel type.
       The ingress PE pushes an upstream-assigned ESI label per [RFC7432]
       if the following conditions are all met:
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>The packet is received on a multihomed ES.
    </t>
    <t>It's EVPN-MPLS.
    </t>
    <t>ESI label procedure is used for split-horizon.
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>The MPLS label from the PTA of the route matched
       for transmission is then pushed onto the packet's label stack for
       EVPN-MPLS. For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, a VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is prepended to
       the packet with the VNI/VSID set to the value in the PTA's label field,
       and then an IP/UDP header is prepended if needed (e.g. for PHP purpose). 
    </t>
    <t>Then the packet is encapsulated in a BIER
       header and forwarded, according to the procedures of
       <xref target='RFC8279'/> and <xref target='RFC8296'/>.
       See especially Section 4, "Imposing and Processing
       the BIER Encapsulation", of <xref target='RFC8296'/>.
       The "Proto" field in the BIER header is set to 2 in the case of EVPN-MPLS,
       or a value to be assigned in the case of EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (<xref
       target="IANA"/>) when an IP header is not used, or 4/6 if an IP header is used
       for EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE.
    </t>
    <t>To create the proper BIER header for a given packet, the
       BFIR must know all the BFERs that need to receive that packet.
       This is determined from the set of leaf tracking routes.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="At a BFIR that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point">
    <t>In this case, the encapsulation for the upstream segment of the P-tunnel
       includes (among other things) a label that identifies the x-PMSI or
       IMET A-D route that
       is the match for reception on the upstream segment. The segmentation point
       re-advertised the route into one or more downstream regions. Each
       instance of the re-advertised route for a downstream region has a PTA
       that specifies tunnel information that is the same as or different from
       that of the route for a different region. For any particular downstream
       region, the route matched for transmission is the re-advertised route,
	   and the leaf tracking routes are determined as follows if needed
       for the tunnel type:
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>If the route matched for transmission is an x-PMSI route, it must have
       the LIR flag set in its PTA and the leaf tracking routes are all the
       matching Leaf A-D and SMET routes received in the downstream region.
    </t>
    <t>If the route matched for transmission is an IMET route, the leaf tracking
       routes are all the IMET routes for the same BD received in the downstream
       region.
    </t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>If the downstream region uses BIER, the packet is forwarded as follows:
    the upstream segmentation's encapsulation is removed and the
	above-mentioned label is swapped to the
       upstream-assigned label in the PTA of the route matched for transmission,
       and then a BIER header is imposed as in <xref target="ingresspe"/>.
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Disposition">
    <t>The same procedures in section 4.2 of <xref target='RFC8556'/>
       are followed for EVPN-MPLS, except some EVPN specifics discussed in
       the following two sub-sections in this document.
    </t>
    <t>For EVPN-VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE, the only difference is that the payload is
       VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE (with or without an IP header) and the VNI/VSID
       field in the VXLAN/NVGRE/GENEVE header is used to determine the corresponding
       broadcast domain.
    </t>
    <section title="At a BFER that is an Egress PE">
    <t>Once the corresponding broadcast domain is determined from
       the upstream-assigned label or VNI/VSID, EVPN forwarding procedures per
       [RFC7432] or <xref target='RFC8365'/> are followed.
       In the case of EVPN-MPLS, if there is an inner label in the label stack
       following the BIER header, that inner label is considered as the
       upstream-assigned ESI label for split horizon purpose.
    </t>
    </section>
    <section title="At a BFER that is a P-tunnel Segmentation Point">
    <t>This is only applicable to EVPN-MPLS. The same procedures in
       Section 4.2.2 of <xref target='RFC8556'/> are followed,
       subject to multihoming procedures specified in
       <xref target='I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates'/>.
    </t>
    </section>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document requests two assignments in
         "BIER Next Protocol Identifiers" registry, with the following two
         recommended values:
       <list style="symbols">
          <t>7: Payload is VXLAN encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
          </t>
          <t>8: Payload is NVGRE encapsulated (no IP header)
          </t>
          <t>9: Payload is GENEVE encapsulated (no IP/UDP header)
          </t>
       </list>
      </t>
      <t>This document requests one assignment of a multicast address
         for the case discussed in <xref target="php-address"/>. Preferably
		 this is assigned from the Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24).
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This document is about using BIER as provider tunnels for EVPN.
	  It is very similar to using BIER as MVPN provider tunnel, and
	  does not introduce additional security implications
	  beyond what have been discussed in EVPN base protocol specification
	  [RFC7432] and MVPN using BIER [RFC8556].
	  </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors thank Eric Rosen for his review and suggestions.
         Additionally, much of the text is borrowed verbatim from
         <xref target='RFC8556'/>.
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
	  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119.xml'?>
	  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6625.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7432.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8279.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8296.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8317.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8556.xml'?>
	  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9012.xml'?>
	  <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8534.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9251.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.xml'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8365.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6514.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bier-php.xml'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.boutros-bess-evpn-geneve.xml'?>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
