



Network Working Group                                          M. Mishra
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                                  Z. Zhang
Expires: 7 August 2026                                  Juniper Networks
                                                              H. Bidgoli
                                                                   Nokia
                                                               M. Busari
                                                                  Aramco
                                                                L. Jalil
                                                                 Verizon
                                                         3 February 2026


                      Multicast over SRv6 networks
                 draft-ietf-pim-multicast-over-srv6-00

Abstract

   This document presents solutions for deploying multicast in SRv6
   networks.  It explores the use of the native IPv6 multicast data
   plane for multicast distribution.  The document discusses distributed
   control plane mechanisms, including PIM, and its integration with IGP
   Flex-Algo to optimize multicast delivery.  The document also
   addresses overlay multicast solutions for both the Global
   Table Multicast (GTM) and Multicast VPNs (MVPNs), utilizing IP-in-
   IPv6 encapsulation without requiring additional shim layers.

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/.

   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 7 August 2026.

Copyright Notice

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



Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IPv6 Data plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Multicast forwarding state  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Route instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Distributed Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  PIM-SM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  PIM-SM with Flex-Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Centralized Control plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Virtualization and Overlay Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Data plane IP in IP Encapsulations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing, as defined in [RFC8402], is a source-routing
   paradigm that simplifies network operations and enhances scalability.
   Segment routing is defined for unicast.  The application of the
   source-route concept to Multicast is declared out-of-scope in
   [RFC8402].

   Since multicast distribution is orthogonal to segment routing,
   classic multicast solutions are leveraged to provide multicast
   services in a segment routing network.  In SR-MPLS networks,
   operators traditionally leveraged solutions based on IPv4 or MPLS
   data planes for multicast distribution, as both data planes were
   available in these networks.








Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   However, with the advent of SRv6, network use a unifying IPv6 data
   plane end-to-end, replacing the need for MPLS or IPv4.  While
   migrating the networks to SRv6, multicast services can still use the
   MPLS or IPv4 data planes, as ships-in-the-night.  But the target is
   an IPv6-only SRv6 network.

   This document focuses on deploying multicast in IPv6-only networks
   and describes possible solutions.  Key Topics Addressed:

   *  Leveraging IPv6’s native multicast capabilities for SRv6 networks.

   *  Distributed and centralized control planes for multicast.

   *  Overlay solutions for supporting multicast in IPv6-only networks.

2.  Terminology

   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] .

   *  PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast

   *  PIM-SM: PIM Sparse Mode

   *  PIM-SSM: PIM Source Specific Multicast

   *  MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Network

   *  MBGP: Multi-protocol Border Gateway Protocol

   *  IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol

   *  MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery

   *  I-PMSI : Inclusive P-Multicast Service Interface

   *  S-PMSI: Selective P-Multicast Service Interface

   *  P(S,G) : Multicast flow (S,G) in provider network

   *  C(S,G) : Multicast flow (S,G) in customer network

   *  All the terminology from [RFC6514] is also applicable in this
      draft.






Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


3.  IPv6 Data plane

   Segment Routing over IPv6 micro-segments (SRv6 uSID) enables end-to-
   end service delivery across domains using the IPv6 protocol without
   additional shim layers or gateways.  This makes the IPv6 protocol
   fully self-sufficient for unicast services.  And its built-in
   multicast capabilities makes IPv6 also self-sufficient for multicast
   distribution.

3.1.  Multicast forwarding state

   To forward multicast packets, multicast forwarding state must be set
   up on the nodes in the multicast distribution trees.  A typical IPv6
   multicast route comprises:

   *  (Source Address, Group Address) or (S, G)

      -  Identifying the distribution tree

      -  Source (S): The IPv6 address of the streaming device, which can
         also be * (any source)

      -  Group (G): The multicast IPv6 group address

   *  Incoming interface : The interface receiving the multicast
      packets, also known as the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) interface

   *  Downstream interfaces : The set of interfaces where the multicast
      packets will be forwarded

3.2.  Route instantiation

   Like IPv6 unicast routes, IPv6 multicast routes can be instantiated
   dynamically through control plane protocols (e.g., PIM) or north-
   bound APIs.  This document focuses only on PIM instantiated multicast
   forwarding state and complimentary document will cover north bound
   API route instantiation.

4.  Distributed Control Plane

4.1.  PIM-SM

   Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) [RFC7761] is the
   most common multicast routing protocol, supporting both Any Source
   Multicast (ASM) and Source-Specific Multicast (SSM).






Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   PIM-SM builds multicast distribution trees by leveraging the RPF
   interface derived from unicast routing tables.  PIM-SSM is a subset
   of PIM-SM that does not use the Rendezvous Points (RPs) but instead
   requires that receivers know the (source, group) pair and signal that
   explicitly.  Most current routing platforms support PIM-SM.

   As its name implies, PIM is independent of the underlying unicast
   routing protocol and leverages the unicast routing tables to
   establish the multicast trees.  It builds a distribution tree by
   joining the tree via the RPF interface, which is the interface that
   would be used to reach the source via unicast routing.

   For a detailed introduction to PIM-SM and PIM-SSM, refer to Sections
   3 and 4.8 of [RFC7761].

4.2.  PIM-SM with Flex-Algo

   By default, a multicast source advertised in the IGP is reachable via
   the IGP shortest-path (SPT algorithm 0).  Therefore, by default, the
   distribution tree follows the IGP shortest-path tree.

   Flex-Algo ([RFC9350], [RFC9502]) enables using customized algorithms
   to compute IGP shortest paths.  When a multicast source (S1) is
   advertised with a specific Flex-Algo (e.g., FA128), PIM-SM builds the
   distribution trees rooted at S1 along the shortest paths defined by
   the Flex-Algo FA128.  This effectively traffic-engineers the path of
   the multicast packets streamed by S1.

   In an example use case, an operator uses FA128 to optimize the min-
   delay link metrics, providing low-delay paths.  The multicast
   distribution trees using FA128 provide low-delay distribution,
   improving real-time applications like video streaming.

5.  Centralized Control plane

   Certain multicast use cases require explicit control over
   distribution trees, beyond what is possible with PIM combined with
   Flex-Algo.  Very specific or complex traffic-engineered distribution
   trees may not be practical or possible using PIM.  Dynamic
   distributed protocols may be undesirable in a network where strict
   determinism is required.  Or the network operator wants to avoid the
   PIM protocol mechanisms (such as messages and RPF selection).

   In these scenarios, a centralized controller can compute and
   instantiate multicast forwarding entries on the routers in the
   distribution trees.  The controller maintains the IPv6 multicast
   forwarding entries and updates them when needed, e.g., following a
   topology change.  These forwarding entries are explicitly



Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   instantiated native IPv6 multicast forwarding entries.  They can be
   statically configured by the operator like static unicast routes or
   explicitly instantiated by a controller via a north-bound API.

   The benefits of centralized control are that it enables complex
   traffic-engineered multicast trees and it removes the dependence on
   PIM protocol mechanisms.

   On the data plane this solution still uses the well-know native IPv6
   multicast forwarding entries.

   The explicitly instantiated distribution trees and PIM-created trees
   can coexist in the network by using different multicast sources and
   groups for both mechanisms.

6.  Virtualization and Overlay Solutions

   Legacy IPv4 multicast implementations are often difficult or
   impossible to migrate to IPv6.  Some services require multicast (IPv4
   or IPv6) within a VPN, necessitating an overlay solution.  These
   solutions leverage the native IPv6 multicast underlay by
   encapsulating the overlay IP multicast packets in IPv6 using IP-in-
   IPv6 encapsulation without intermediate shim layers.

   The native IPv6 underlay transport distribution trees can be
   established using any of the mechanisms described in sections 6 and
   7.

   To deploy overlay IP multicast services in an IPv6-only network,
   existing solutions are used.  There are no SRv6-specific requirements
   for these solutions.  These solutions enable transporting overlay IP
   multicast (IPv4 and IPv6), in a Global Table Multicast (GTM) or MVPN
   context, over an IPv6-only network, encapsulated as IP-in-IPv6.

   As existing native IPv6 capabilities are leveraged, there are no SRv6
   specific procedures for this solution.

   Specifically, the following RFCs are relevant in this context:

   *  [RFC6513] specifies the architecture for Multicast Virtual Private
      Networks (MVPNs) in MPLS/BGP IP VPN environments.  While it
      includes MPLS in its title, it also provides significant details
      relevant to IP-only solutions for MVPNs.  The document describes
      how multicast traffic is transported over VPNs, how control plane
      signaling establishes the multicast forwarding paths, and the
      encapsulation mechanisms for data plane traffic.





Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   *  [RFC6514] defines the specific BGP encodings and procedures for
      signaling multicast routing information in MVPNs as specified in
      [RFC6513].

   *  [RFC6515] updates [RFC6514] to ensure that service providers can
      use either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses for internal infrastructure
      (e.g., PE-to-PE or PE-to-P router communication) in the context of
      multicast VPNs.  This is particularly relevant in IPv6-only
      transport networks.

   *  RFC 7716 extends the MVPN procedures defined in [RFC6514] to
      support Global Table Multicast (GTM), i.e., multicast routing in
      the global routing table rather than within the context of VPNs.
      This is particularly relevant in IPv6-only networks that require
      IPv4 multicast services without using VPNs.

   *  [RFC8950] addresses the challenge of advertising IPv4 NLRIs in BGP
      updates when the next hop is an IPv6 address.  This is
      particularly relevant for enabling IPv4 routing in IPv6-only
      networks.

   As an example, the following solution could be used to provide an
   MVPN service in an SRv6 network.  Note that other solutions may
   equally be possible.

   The native IPv6 multicast provider distribution trees (P-Multicast
   Service Interfaces (PMSIs) or P-tunnels) are build using PIM-SSM,
   signaling the PMSI A-D routes in MP-BGP.  PIM is used to signal
   multicast participation between CE and PE.  MP-BGP is used to signal
   the customer multicast routes between the MVPN PEs.  The overlay
   customer multicast packets are transported over the network using IP-
   in-IPv6 encapsulation, traversing the underlay PMSI distribution
   trees.

7.  Data plane IP in IP Encapsulations

   IP in IP encapsulation is used when sending IPv4 multicast traffic
   though provider multicast tree.  The following diagram shows the
   progression of the packet as it enters and leaves the service
   provider network.











Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


Packet Received                    Packet in Transit                      Packet forwarded
at Ingress PE                      in the service                         by egress PEs
                                   provider network
                                  +---------------------+
                                  |    P-IPv6 Header    |
+-------------------+             +---------------------+              +-------------------+
|    C-IPv4 header  |             |    C-IPv4 Header    |              |     C-IPv4 header |
+-------------------+  >>>>>>>>>> +---------------------+ >>>>>>>>>>>> +-------------------+
|    C-Payload      |             |    C-Payload        |              |     C-Payload     |
+-------------------+             +---------------------+              +-------------------+

The “Next Header” field in the P-IP IPv6 Header MUST be set to 4
   Since the C-IP header is an IPv4 header.


Packet Received                    Packet in Transit                      Packet forwarded
at Ingress PE                      in the service                         by egress PEs
                                   provider network
                                  +---------------------+
                                  |    P-IPv6 Header    |
+-------------------+             +---------------------+              +-------------------+
|    C-IPv6 header  |             |    C-IPv6 Header    |              |     C-IPv6 header |
+-------------------+  >>>>>>>>>> +---------------------+ >>>>>>>>>>>> +-------------------+
|    C-Payload      |             |    C-Payload        |              |     C-Payload     |
+-------------------+             +---------------------+              +-------------------+

The “Next Header” field in the P-IP IPv6 Header MUST be set to 41
   Since the C-IP header is an IPv6 header.

8.  IANA Considerations

   Informational draft and nothing required from IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   There is no new security issue imposed by this draft on top of
   [RFC8950], [RFC6513].  [RFC6514], [RFC6515], [RFC7761].

10.  Acknowledgement


11.  Contributors

      Kris Michielsen

      Anuj Budhiraja

      Zafar Ali



Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


      Zubair Khan

12.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC6532]  Yang, A., Steele, S., and N. Freed, "Internationalized
              Email Headers", RFC 6532, DOI 10.17487/RFC6532, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6532>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC9350]  Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
              and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.

   [RFC9502]  Britto, W., Hegde, S., Kaneriya, P., Shetty, R., Bonica,
              R., and P. Psenak, "IGP Flexible Algorithm in IP
              Networks", RFC 9502, DOI 10.17487/RFC9502, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9502>.

   [RFC6515]  Aggarwal, R. and E. Rosen, "IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure
              Addresses in BGP Updates for Multicast VPN", RFC 6515,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6515, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6515>.








Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Multicast over SRv6 networks         February 2026


   [RFC8950]  Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
              Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
              Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mankamana Mishra
   Cisco Systems
   821 Alder Drive,
   MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035
   United States
   Email: mankamis@cisco.com


   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   United States
   Email: zzhang@juniper.net


   Hooman Bidgoli
   Nokia
   Canada
   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com


   Mudashiru Busari
   Aramco
   Email: Mudashiru.Busari.1@Aramco.com


   Luay Jalil
   Verizon
   United States of America
   Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com










Mishra, et al.            Expires 7 August 2026                [Page 10]
