



BIER                                                               Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Du
Intended status: Informational                              China Mobile
Expires: 1 September 2026                                       W. Cheng
                                                                 J. Wang
                                                                G. Zhang
                                                         Centec Networks
                                                        28 February 2026


  Scalable Data Plane Architecture for Bit Index Explicit Replication
                                 (BIER)
                  draft-li-bier-scalable-data-plane-00

Abstract

   This document describes an optimized data plane forwarding
   architecture for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).  The standard
   BIER forwarding procedures, as conceptually described in RFC 8279,
   imply a per-bit evaluation of the BitString against the Bit Index
   Forwarding Table (BIFT) on each Bit Forwarding Router (BFR).  When
   the BitStringLength is large (e.g., 256 bits or more), this
   conceptual model presents implementation challenges for high-speed
   ASIC/NPU forwarding engines in terms of processing latency and
   hardware table resources.

   This document defines two conceptual data structures -- a Replication
   Member Table and an Interface BitMask Table -- that decouple the
   multicast replication decision from per-bit BitString parsing.  The
   resulting forwarding pipeline operates in time proportional to the
   number of egress interfaces rather than the BitString length,
   enabling deterministic and scalable hardware processing.  This
   mechanism is semantically equivalent to the forwarding procedures of
   RFC 8279 and does not modify the BIER encapsulation or introduce new
   protocol signaling.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.






Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Conceptual Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Replication Member Table (RMT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Interface BitMask Table (IBMT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Step 1: Replication Group Resolution  . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Step 2: Interface-Level Replication . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Step 3: Egress BitString Isolation  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.4.  Step 4: Forwarding Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.5.  Forwarding Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Relationship to RFC 8279 Forwarding Procedures  . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12







Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


1.  Introduction

   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] provides a stateless
   multicast forwarding architecture that eliminates the need for per-
   flow state in transit routers and for explicit multicast tree-
   building protocols.  In BIER, the ingress router (BFIR) encapsulates
   multicast data packets with a BIER header [RFC8296] that contains a
   BitString indicating the set of destination Bit-Forwarding Egress
   Routers (BFERs).

   As BIER deployments scale to larger domains, multi-tenant data
   centers, and AI/ML cluster environments, the required BitStringLength
   (BSL) increases significantly.  [RFC8279] Section 6.5 provides a
   conceptual forwarding pseudocode that iterates over each set bit in
   the BitString to determine the forwarding next-hop (BFR-NBR) and the
   per-neighbor Forwarding BitMask (F-BM).  While RFC 8279 explicitly
   notes that this is a conceptual description and implementations may
   optimize the process, no standardized optimized architecture has been
   defined to guide hardware implementors.

   This document fills this gap by defining a decoupled forwarding
   pipeline architecture that separates "determining which egress
   interfaces need packet copies" from "filtering the BitString for each
   copy."  The key insight is that the number of distinct egress
   interfaces on a BFR is typically much smaller than the
   BitStringLength (e.g., 4-16 interfaces vs. 256+ bits), making
   interface-centric processing significantly more efficient for
   hardware implementation.

   The mechanism described herein is semantically equivalent to the
   standard BIER forwarding procedures of RFC 8279 -- for any given
   input BitString, both approaches produce identical forwarding
   outcomes (same set of egress interfaces with the same per-interface
   BitStrings).  This document does not modify the BIER encapsulation
   format defined in [RFC8296] and does not introduce any new protocol
   signaling.

2.  Terminology

   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.

   This document uses the following terms as defined in [RFC8279] and
   [RFC8296]:




Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   BFR:  Bit Forwarding Router.

   BFIR:  Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router.

   BFER:  Bit-Forwarding Egress Router.

   BFR-NBR:  A BFR that is a neighbor of the current BFR in the BIER
      forwarding topology.

   BIFT:  Bit Index Forwarding Table, as defined in [RFC8279].

   BIFT-id:  An identifier for a BIFT entry as defined in [RFC8296].  In
      MPLS encapsulation, this corresponds to an MPLS label value that
      implicitly encodes the <SD, SI, BSL> tuple.

   BitString (BS):  A string of bits in the BIER header indicating the
      set of destination BFERs.

   F-BM (Forwarding BitMask):  A bitmask associated with an egress
      interface, representing the logical OR of all BFR-id bit positions
      of downstream BFERs reachable via that interface.

   This document introduces the following new terms:

   Replication Group Identifier:  A conceptual identifier derived from
      the BIER packet header's BIFT-id, used to index the Replication
      Member Table.  In practice, it MAY be identical to the BIFT-id.

   Replication Member Table (RMT):  A conceptual data structure that
      maps a Replication Group Identifier to a list of egress interface
      identifiers.

   Interface BitMask Table (IBMT):  A conceptual data structure that
      maps an egress interface identifier to the corresponding F-BM for
      that interface.

3.  Problem Statement

   The conceptual forwarding pseudocode in [RFC8279] Section 6.5
   describes a process where each set bit in the incoming BitString is
   evaluated individually to determine the appropriate BFR-NBR and the
   associated F-BM.  While this provides a clear and correct algorithmic
   specification, direct hardware implementation of this per-bit
   iteration model presents the following challenges in large-scale
   deployments:






Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   First, processing latency scales with BitString length.  When BSL is
   256 or larger, scanning each bit position -- whether sequentially or
   in parallel -- imposes a processing cost that grows linearly with
   BSL.  For line-rate forwarding of high-throughput multicast flows on
   100GE or 400GE interfaces, this can become a significant constraint
   on forwarding engine design.

   Second, hardware table resources scale with BitString length.  A
   standard BIFT maintains one entry per BFR-id (i.e., per bit
   position), each containing a BFR-NBR identifier and a full-length
   F-BM.  For BSL=256 and a single <SD, SI> combination, this requires
   256 table entries, each storing a 256-bit F-BM, consuming substantial
   TCAM or SRAM resources.  In resource-constrained edge routers or
   densely populated data center environments supporting multiple Sub-
   Domains and Set Identifiers, the aggregate table size can become
   prohibitive.

4.  Architecture Overview

   The optimized forwarding architecture decomposes BIER packet
   processing into two decoupled phases, each served by an independent
   conceptual lookup table.  The following diagram illustrates the high-
   level forwarding pipeline:




























Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


                      BIER Packet Received
                             |
                             v
                   +-------------------+
                   | Extract BIFT-id   |
                   | from BIER Header  |
                   +--------+----------+
                            |
                            v
             +------------------------------+
             | Phase 1: Replication Lookup  |
             | RMT[BIFT-id] -> {IF1,..,IFn} |
             +------------------------------+
                            |
               +------------+------------+
               |            |            |
               v            v            v
          +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
          | Copy 1 |   | Copy 2 |   | Copy N |
          | -> IF1 |   | -> IF2 |   | -> IFN |
          +---+----+   +---+----+   +---+----+
              |            |            |
              v            v            v
       +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
       | Phase 2:  | | Phase 2:  | | Phase 2:  |
       | BS AND    | | BS AND    | | BS AND    |
       | IBMT[IF1] | | IBMT[IF2] | | IBMT[IFN] |
       +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
              |            |            |
              v            v            v
       +------------+ +------------+ +------------+
       | !=0: Fwd   | | !=0: Fwd   | | !=0: Fwd   |
       | ==0: Drop  | | ==0: Drop  | | ==0: Drop  |
       +------------+ +------------+ +------------+

   Phase 1 (Replication Lookup) determines which egress interfaces
   require a copy of the packet, based solely on the BIFT-id.  This is
   independent of the specific BitString content in the received packet.

   Phase 2 (BitString Isolation) performs a single bitwise AND operation
   per egress interface to compute the filtered BitString for each copy.
   Copies with a resulting zero BitString are discarded.

   The processing complexity of this pipeline is O(NumEgressInterfaces)
   for both phases combined, compared to O(BitStringLength) for the per-
   bit iteration model.  In typical network topologies, a BFR has 2 to
   16 egress interfaces, while BSL may be 256, 512, or larger.




Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


5.  Conceptual Data Structures

5.1.  Replication Member Table (RMT)

   A compliant BFR MUST maintain a conceptual Replication Member
   Table that maps each Replication Group Identifier to the set of
   egress interfaces that have at least one downstream BFER reachable
   through them.

   +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Replication Group ID      | Egress Interface List         |
   | (derived from BIFT-id)    |                               |
   +===========================+===============================+
   | RG_1                      | { IF_a, IF_b }                |
   +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | RG_2                      | { IF_a, IF_c, IF_d }          |
   +---------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | ...                       | ...                           |
   +---------------------------+-------------------------------+

   The RMT is populated by the BIER control plane based on the network
   topology and BIFT computation results.  The control plane MUST derive
   the egress interface list by identifying all unique BFR-NBRs present
   in the BIFT entries for the corresponding <SD, SI, BSL> and mapping
   each BFR-NBR to its associated egress interface.

   The size of the RMT is O(N_groups), where N_groups is the number of
   distinct Replication Group Identifiers (i.e., distinct <SD, SI, BSL>
   tuples in use).  Each entry contains a list of at most
   O(N_interfaces) egress interface identifiers.

5.2.  Interface BitMask Table (IBMT)

   A compliant BFR MUST maintain a conceptual Interface BitMask
   Table that maps each egress interface to the Forwarding BitMask
   (F-BM) representing all downstream BFERs reachable via that
   interface.














Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   +-----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Egress    | Forwarding BitMask (F-BM)                 |
   | Interface |                                           |
   | ID        |                                           |
   +===========+===========================================+
   | IF_a      | 0b11000000...00  (BFR-ids 1,2 reachable) |
   +-----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | IF_b      | 0b00110000...00  (BFR-ids 3,4 reachable) |
   +-----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | IF_c      | 0b00001100...00  (BFR-ids 5,6 reachable) |
   +-----------+-------------------------------------------+

   For each egress interface IF_k, the F-BM is computed as the bitwise
   OR of all bit positions corresponding to BFERs whose shortest path
   (or engineered path, in the case of BIER-TE) from this BFR traverses
   IF_k.  Formally:

   F-BM(IF_k) = OR of { bit(BFR-id_j) } for all BFER_j where BIFT[BFR-
   id_j].BFR-NBR is reachable via IF_k.

   The IBMT MUST be updated by the control plane whenever the BIER
   topology or BIFT entries change.  The size of the IBMT is
   O(N_interfaces), where each entry stores one F-BM of BitStringLength
   bits.

   Note: When the BFR participates in multiple Sub-Domains or supports
   multiple <SI, BSL> combinations, the IBMT entries MAY be scoped per
   <SD, BSL> or may use a single aggregate F-BM if the interface-to-
   downstream-BFER mapping is consistent across all applicable contexts.
   The specific scoping strategy is an implementation choice.

6.  Forwarding Procedures

   Upon receiving a valid BIER packet, a compliant BFR implementing this
   architecture MUST execute the following deterministic procedures in
   its data plane:

6.1.  Step 1: Replication Group Resolution

   The BFR extracts the BIFT-id from the received BIER packet header as
   specified in [RFC8296].  The BFR derives the Replication Group
   Identifier from the BIFT-id and queries the RMT to obtain the
   associated list of egress interface identifiers {IF_1, IF_2, ...,
   IF_n}.

   If no matching entry exists in the RMT, the BFR MUST discard the
   packet and SHOULD log an error.




Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


6.2.  Step 2: Interface-Level Replication

   The BFR generates an independent packet replica for each egress
   interface in the list obtained in Step 1.  At this stage, the BFR
   MUST NOT modify the BitString in any of the replicas.  All replicas
   carry the original BitString from the received packet.

6.3.  Step 3: Egress BitString Isolation

   For each packet replica destined to egress interface IF_k, the BFR
   queries the IBMT to retrieve the F-BM associated with IF_k.  The BFR
   MUST compute:

   BitString_new = BitString_original AND F-BM(IF_k)

6.4.  Step 4: Forwarding Decision

   For each replica:

   *  If BitString_new is zero (all bits clear), the BFR MUST discard
      the replica.  This prevents forwarding packets to interfaces that
      have no relevant downstream BFERs for the current packet, avoiding
      unnecessary bandwidth consumption and potential forwarding
      anomalies.

   *  If BitString_new is non-zero, the BFR MUST overwrite the BIER
      header's BitString field with BitString_new and transmit the
      replica via egress interface IF_k.  The remaining BIER header
      fields (including BIFT-id) are updated according to the standard
      procedures of [RFC8279] and [RFC8296] (e.g., BIFT-id label swap in
      MPLS encapsulation, TTL decrement).

6.5.  Forwarding Example

   Consider BFR-A with three egress interfaces in a BIER domain using
   BSL=8 for simplicity of illustration:

                   +---------+
                   |  BFR-A  |
                   +---------+
                  /     |      \
               IF1     IF2     IF3
                |       |       |
             BFR-B   BFR-C   BFR-D
          (BFR-ids  (BFR-ids  (BFR-ids
            1, 2)    3, 4)     5, 6)

   BFR-A's RMT (for the relevant Replication Group):



Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   +-------------------+-------------------------+
   | Replication Group | Egress Interface List   |
   +===================+=========================+
   | RG_X              | { IF1, IF2, IF3 }       |
   +-------------------+-------------------------+

   BFR-A's IBMT:

   +-----------+-----------+
   | Interface | F-BM      |
   +===========+===========+
   | IF1       | 00000011  |
   +-----------+-----------+
   | IF2       | 00001100  |
   +-----------+-----------+
   | IF3       | 00110000  |
   +-----------+-----------+

   Scenario: BFR-A receives a BIER packet with BitString = 00101010
   (destinations: BFR-ids 2, 4, 6).

   Step 1: RMT[RG_X] -> {IF1, IF2, IF3}
   Step 2: Create 3 replicas

   Step 3 and 4:
     Replica 1 (IF1): 00101010 AND 00000011 = 00000010
                       Non-zero -> Forward with BS=00000010
     Replica 2 (IF2): 00101010 AND 00001100 = 00001000
                       Non-zero -> Forward with BS=00001000
     Replica 3 (IF3): 00101010 AND 00110000 = 00100000
                       Non-zero -> Forward with BS=00100000

   Now consider BitString = 00101000 (destinations: BFR-ids 4, 6 only):

     Replica 1 (IF1): 00101000 AND 00000011 = 00000000
                       Zero -> DISCARD (no BFERs via IF1)
     Replica 2 (IF2): 00101000 AND 00001100 = 00001000
                       Non-zero -> Forward with BS=00001000
     Replica 3 (IF3): 00101000 AND 00110000 = 00100000
                       Non-zero -> Forward with BS=00100000

   In the second scenario, the replica for IF1 is correctly discarded
   since no destination BFERs are reachable via IF1, demonstrating the
   isolation property of the architecture.







Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


7.  Relationship to RFC 8279 Forwarding Procedures

   The forwarding mechanism described in this document is semantically
   equivalent to the conceptual forwarding procedures defined in
   [RFC8279] Section 6.5.  Both approaches produce identical forwarding
   results for any given input BitString: the same set of egress
   interfaces receive packet copies, and each copy carries the same
   filtered BitString.

   The difference lies in the iteration strategy.  [RFC8279] iterates
   over bit positions (BFR-ids), grouping bits by their associated BFR-
   NBR.  This document's approach pre-computes the bit-to-interface
   grouping into the RMT and IBMT, and iterates over egress interfaces
   instead.  Since the number of egress interfaces (typically 2-16) is
   much smaller than the BitStringLength (typically 64-1024), this
   approach reduces the per-packet processing complexity from O(BSL) to
   O(N_interfaces).

   A BFR implementing the architecture described in this document MUST
   produce forwarding results that are bit-for-bit identical to those
   produced by a correct implementation of [RFC8279] Section 6.5.  Any
   deviation constitutes a forwarding error.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security considerations beyond
   those already discussed in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].  The forwarding
   architecture described herein is semantically equivalent to the
   standard BIER forwarding procedures and processes the same BIER
   header fields.  No new protocol signaling or encapsulation formats
   are introduced.

   The RMT and IBMT are populated by the BIER control plane and are
   subject to the same security considerations as the BIFT.
   Unauthorized modification of RMT or IBMT entries could result in
   incorrect packet replication or delivery to unintended interfaces.
   Implementations SHOULD protect these data structures with the same
   access control mechanisms used for BIFT entries.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.









Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   The mechanism defined in this document is a local implementation
   optimization for BIER forwarding.  It does not define new protocol
   fields, encapsulation formats, or registry entries.  The Replication
   Member Table and Interface BitMask Table are conceptual data
   structures internal to a BFR and do not require any protocol-level
   identifier allocation.

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, 28 February 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              28 February 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, 28 February 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, 28
              February 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC9262]  Eckert, T., Ed., Menth, M., and G. Cauchie, "Tree
              Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
              RFC 9262, DOI 10.17487/RFC9262, 28 February 2026,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9262>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the members of the BIER Working Group
   for their ongoing work on BIER scalability and deployment.

Authors' Addresses





Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          BIER Scalable Data Plane           February 2026


   Zhiqiang Li
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing
   100053
   China
   Email: lizhiqiangyjy@chinamobile.com


   Zongpeng Du
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Street
   Beijing
   100053
   China
   Email: duzongpeng@chinamobile.com


   Wei Cheng
   Centec Networks
   Suzhou
   215000
   China
   Email: chengw@centec.com


   Junjie Wang
   Centec Networks
   Suzhou
   215000
   China
   Email: wangjj@centec.com


   Guoying Zhang
   Centec Networks
   Suzhou
   215000
   China
   Email: zhanggy@centec.com











Li, et al.              Expires 1 September 2026               [Page 13]
