<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-11" number="9780" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="8562" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Multipoint BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP">Bidirectional
    Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks over
    Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9780"/>
    <author fullname="Greg Mirsky" initials="G." surname="Mirsky">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G." surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Donald Eastlake 3rd" initials="D." surname="Eastlake 3rd">
      <organization>Independent</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2386 Panoramic Circle</street>
          <city>Apopka</city>
          <region>FL</region><code>32703</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>d3e3e3@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2025" month="May"/>

    <area>RTG</area>
    <workgroup>mpls</workgroup>

    <keyword>BFD</keyword>
    <keyword>Multipoint LSP</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>
   This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures
   in point-to-multipoint MPLS
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies
   with an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane.
      </t>
      <t>
   Furthermore, this document updates RFC 8562 by
   recommending the use of an IPv6 address from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64
   and discouraging the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped
   to IPv6.
   </t>

   <t>
   In addition, this document describes the applicability of LSP Ping (as an in-band
 solution) and the control plane (as an out-of-band solution) to bootstrap
 a BFD session.
   The document also describes the behavior of the active tail for head
   notification.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  
  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
      <xref target="RFC8562"/> defines a method of using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) <xref target="RFC5880"/>
      to monitor and detect failures between the sender
   (head) and one or more receivers (tails) in multipoint or multicast
   networks.
      </t>
      <t>
   <xref target="RFC8562"/> added two BFD session types: MultipointHead and
   MultipointTail. Throughout this document, MultipointHead and
   MultipointTail refer to the value to which the bfd.SessionType is set on a
   BFD endpoint.
      </t>

      <t>
      This document describes procedures for using such
   modes of the BFD protocol to detect data plane failures in point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies
   with an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane.
      </t>
      <t>
  The document also describes the applicability of LSP Ping (an in-band solution) and
  out-of-band solutions to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment.
      </t>
      <t>
 Historically, an address in the IPv6-mapped IPv4 loopback address block
 ::ffff:127.0.0.1/128 was mandated, although functionally, an
 IPv6 address from that address block is not analogous to its IPv4
 counterpart.
   Furthermore,
   using the loopback address as the destination address, even for an inner IP encapsulation of a tunneled packet,
   violates <xref target="RFC4291" sectionFormat="of" section="2.5.3"/>. Hence, IANA has allocated
   100:0:0:1::/64 as a new Dummy IPv6 Prefix (<xref target="iana-ipv6-addr-alloc-sec"/>)
   for destination IPv6 addresses used for IP/UDP encapsulation of management, control, and OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) packets.
  A source-only IPv6 dummy address is used as the destination to generate an exception and a reply message to the request message received.
   This document starts the transition to using the IPv6 addresses from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64 as the IPv6 destination address
   in the IP/UDP encapsulation of active OAM over the MPLS data plane.
   Thus, this document updates <xref target="RFC8562"/> by recommending the use of an IPv6 address from the
   Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64 (<xref target="iana-ipv6-addr-alloc-sec"/>) while
   acknowledging that an address from the ::ffff:127.0.0.1/128 address block might be used by existing implementations. This document
   discourages the use of an address in the IPv6-mapped IPv4 loopback address block.
   </t>
      <t>
   This document also describes the behavior of the active tail for head notification.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions Used in This Document</name>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <dl>
        <dt>ACH:</dt><dd>Associated Channel Header</dd>
        <dt>BFD:</dt><dd>Bidirectional Forwarding Detection</dd>
        <dt>GAL:</dt><dd>G-ACh Label</dd>
        <dt>G-ACh:</dt><dd>Generic Associated Channel</dd>
        <dt>LSP:</dt><dd>Label Switched Path</dd>
        <dt>LSR:</dt><dd>Label Switching Router</dd>
        <dt>MPLS:</dt><dd>Multiprotocol Label Switching</dd>
        <dt>P2MP:</dt><dd>Point-to-Multipoint</dd>
	<dt>PW:</dt><dd>Pseudowire (PW)</dd> 
        <dt>SR:</dt><dd>Segment Routing</dd>
        <dt>SR-MPLS:</dt><dd>SR over MPLS</dd>
      </dl>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>
    The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>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 are
    to be interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
    <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
    as shown here.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="encaps-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Multipoint BFD Encapsulation</name>

      <t>
      <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/> uses BFD in Demand mode 
      from the very start of a point-to-multipoint (P2MP) BFD session. Because the
      head doesn't receive any BFD Control packets from a tail, the head of the P2MP BFD
      session transmits all BFD Control packets with the value of the Your Discriminator field set to zero. As a result, a tail cannot demultiplex
      BFD sessions using Your Discriminator, as defined in <xref target="RFC5880" format="default"/>.
      To demultiplex BFD sessions, <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/> requires that
      the tail use the source IP address, My Discriminator, and the identity of the multipoint tree
      from which the BFD Control packet was received.
      If the BFD Control packet is encapsulated in IP/UDP, then the source IP address
      <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used to demultiplex the received BFD Control packet as described in <xref target="RFC8562" sectionFormat="of" section="5.7"/>.
      The non-IP encapsulation case is described in <xref target="non-ip-encaps-section" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <section anchor="ip-encaps-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD</name>
        <t>
        <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/> defines IP/UDP encapsulation for multipoint BFD 
        over P2MP MPLS LSP. This document updates <xref target="RFC8562" sectionFormat="of" section="5.8"/> regarding the selection of
        the IPv6 destination address as follows:
        </t>

	
      <ul spacing="normal">
      <li>The sender of an MPLS echo request <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use an address from
      the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64 (see <xref target="iana-ipv6-addr-alloc-sec"/>).</li>
      <li>The sender of an MPLS echo request <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> select the IPv6 destination  address from the ::ffff:7f00/104 address block.</li>
      </ul>
      
      <t><xref target="RFC6790" sectionFormat="of" section="1.2" format="default"/>
      lists several advantages of generating the entropy value by an ingress
      Label Switching Router (LSR) compared to when a transit LSR infers
      entropy using the information in the MPLS label stack or payload.  
      This specification further clarifies the following if multiple alternative paths
      for the given P2MP LSP Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) exist:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>The MultipointHead
          <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use the Entropy Label <xref target="RFC6790"
          format="default"/> used for LSP Ping <xref target="RFC8029"
          format="default"/> to exercise those particular alternative
          paths; or</li>
          <li>The MultipointHead <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use the UDP port
          number to possibly exercise those particular alternate paths.</li>
        </ul>

      </section>
      <section anchor="non-ip-encaps-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD</name>
        <t>
          In some environments, the overhead of extra IP/UDP encapsulations may be
   considered burdensome, which makes the use of more compact Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) <xref target="RFC5586"/>
   encapsulation attractive. Also, the validation of the IP/UDP encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in a P2MP BFD session
   may fail because of a problem related to neither the MPLS label stack nor BFD. Avoiding unnecessary encapsulation
   of P2MP BFD over an MPLS LSP improves the accuracy of the correlation of the detected failure and defect in MPLS LSP.
   </t>
   <t>
     Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP (shown in <xref target="non-ip-p2mp-bfd-pic" format="default"/>)
     <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the G-ACh Label (GAL) <xref target="RFC5586" format="default"/> at the bottom of the label
        stack followed by an Associated Channel Header (ACH). If a BFD Control packet in PW-ACH encapsulation (without IP/UDP Headers) is to be used in ACH,
        an implementation would not be able to verify the identity of the MultipointHead and, as a result, will not properly demultiplex BFD packets. Hence,
        a new channel type value is needed. The Channel Type field in ACH <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to
        Multipoint BFD Session (0x0013) (see <xref target="iana-ach-sec"/>). To provide the identity of the MultipointHead for the particular
        multipoint BFD session, a Source Address TLV, as defined in <xref target="RFC7212" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1"/>,
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> immediately follow a BFD Control packet. The use of other TLVs is outside the scope of this document.
        </t>

      <figure anchor="non-ip-p2mp-bfd-pic">
          <name>Non-IP Encapsulation for Multipoint BFD over a Multicast MPLS LSP</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|               LSP Label               |  TC |S|       TTL     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                  GAL                  |  TC |1|       TTL     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|     Flags     |      Channel Type = 0x0013    |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                        BFD Control Packet                     ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Type=0    |    Reserved   |            Length             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           Reserved            |         Address Family        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                            Address                            ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
<t>The fields in <xref target="non-ip-p2mp-bfd-pic"/> are interpreted as follows:</t>

<ul>
<li>The top three four-octet words are defined in <xref target="RFC5586"/>.</li>
<li>The BFD Control Packet field is defined in <xref target="RFC5880"/>.</li>
<li>All the remaining fields are defined in <xref target="RFC7212" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1"/>.</li>
</ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="bootstrapping-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD</name>
      <section anchor="lsp-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>LSP Ping</name>
        <t>
        LSP Ping is the part of the on-demand OAM toolset used to detect and localize defects in the data plane and
        verify the control plane against the data plane by ensuring that the LSP is mapped to the same FEC
        at both egress and ingress endpoints. 
        </t>
	
        <t>
      LSP Ping, as defined in <xref target="RFC6425" format="default"/>, <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used to bootstrap MultipointTail. If LSP Ping is used,
        it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the Target FEC Stack TLV <xref target="RFC8029" format="default"/> and the BFD Discriminator TLV <xref target="RFC5884" format="default"/>. For the case of P2MP MPLS LSP, the Target FEC Stack TLV
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use sub-TLVs defined in <xref target="RFC6425" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1"/>. For the case of P2MP SR policy with an SR-MPLS data plane, 
        an implementation of this specification <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the procedures defined in <xref target="RFC8287" format="default"/>. Setting the value 
        of the Reply Mode field to "Do not reply" <xref target="RFC8029"/> for the  LSP Ping to bootstrap the MultipointTail of the P2MP BFD session is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>.
        Indeed, because BFD over a multipoint network uses BFD Demand mode, the MPLS echo reply from a tail has no useful information to convey to the head,
        unlike in the case of BFD over a P2P MPLS LSP <xref target="RFC5884" format="default"/>.
        A MultipointTail that receives an LSP Ping that includes the BFD Discriminator TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> do the following:
        </t>


        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>validate the LSP Ping;
        </li>
          <li>associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the P2MP LSP;
        </li>
          <li>create a P2MP BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
      MultipointTail as described in <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/>; and
      </li>
          <li>use the source IP address of the LSP Ping, the value
      of BFD Discriminator from the BFD Discriminator TLV, and the identity of the P2MP LSP
       to properly demultiplex BFD sessions.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>
        Besides bootstrapping a BFD session over a P2MP LSP, LSP Ping <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used to verify the control plane
        against the data plane periodically by checking that the P2MP LSP is mapped  to the same FEC at the
        MultipointHead and all active MultipointTails. The rate of generation of these LSP Ping echo request
   messages <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be significantly less than the rate of generation of
   the BFD Control packets because LSP Ping requires more processing to validate
   the consistency between the data plane and the control plane. An implementation <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> provide configuration
   options to control the rate of generation of the periodic LSP Ping echo request messages.
        </t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="control-plane-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Control Plane</name>
        <t>
           The BFD Discriminator attribute <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be used to bootstrap a multipoint
   BFD session on a tail, following the format and procedures given in
   <xref target="RFC9026" sectionFormat="of" section="3.1.6"/>.
   </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operation-sec" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail over P2MP MPLS LSP</name>

      <t>
<xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/> defines how BFD Demand mode can be used in multipoint networks.
When applied in MPLS, the procedures specified in <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/> allow an egress LSR to detect a failure in the part of the P2MP MPLS LSP
from the ingress LSR to that egress LSR. The ingress LSR is not aware of the state of the P2MP LSP.  <xref target="RFC8563" format="default"/>, using mechanisms defined in <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/>,
defines the behavior of an active tail. An active tail might notify the head of the detected failure and respond to a poll sequence initiated by the head.
The first method, referred to as "Head Notification without Polling", is mentioned in <xref target="RFC8563" sectionFormat="of" section="5.2.1"/>) and
is the simplest of the methods described in <xref target="RFC8563" format="default"/>.
The use of this method in BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP is discussed in this document.
Analysis of other methods for a head to learn of the state of the P2MP MPLS LSP is outside the scope of this document.
</t>
      <t>
As specified in <xref target="RFC8563" format="default"/>, BFD variables <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be as follows for the active tail mode:
</t>

<ul spacing="normal">
      <li><t>On an ingress LSR:</t>


      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>bfd.SessionType is MultipointHead.</li>
        <li>bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is nonzero, allowing egress LSRs to send BFD Control packets.</li>
      </ul>
      </li>
      <li><t>On an egress LSR:</t>

      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>bfd.SessionType is MultipointTail.</li>
        <li>bfd.SilentTail is set to zero.</li>
      </ul>
      </li>
</ul>
      <t>
	<xref target="RFC8563" sectionFormat="of" section="5.2.1"/> notes that "the tail sends unsolicited BFD packets in response
to the detection of a multipoint path failure" but does not provide specifics about the information in the packets or the frequency of transmissions.
The procedure for an active tail with unsolicited notifications for P2MP MPLS LSP is defined below.
</t>
      <t>Upon detecting the failure of the P2MP MPLS LSP, an egress LSR sends a BFD Control packet with the following settings:
</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>The Poll (P) bit is set.</li>
        <li>The Status (Sta) field is set to the Down value.</li>
        <li>The Diagnostic (Diag) field is set to the Control Detection Time Expired value.</li>
        <li>The value of the Your Discriminator field is set to the value the egress LSR has been using to demultiplex that BFD multipoint session.</li>
      </ul>

        <t>
The BFD Control packet <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be encapsulated in IP/UDP with the destination IP address of the ingress LSR
and the UDP destination port number set to 4784 per <xref target="RFC5883" format="default"/>. If non-IP encapsulation is 
used, then a BFD Control packet is encapsulated using PW-ACH encapsulation (without IP/UDP Headers)
with Channel Type 0x0007 <xref target="RFC5885" format="default"/>.
	</t>

        <t>
The BFD Control packets are transmitted at the rate of one per
    second until either 1) the egress LSA receives a control packet from the ingress LSR
    that is valid for this BFD session and has the Final (F) bit set or 2) the
    defect condition clears.
  However, to improve the likelihood of notifying the ingress LSR of the failure of the P2MP MPLS LSP,
  the egress LSR <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> initially transmit three BFD Control packets (as defined above) in short succession.
  The actual transmission of the periodic BFD Control packet <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be jittered by up to 25% within one-second intervals.
  Thus, the interval <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be reduced by a random value of 0 to 25%, to reduce the possibility of congestion on the ingress LSR's
  data and control planes.
  </t>

      <t>
As described above, an ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control packet
sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with the Final (F) bit set
to the egress LSR. In some scenarios (e.g., when a P2MP LSP is broken close to its root and the number of egress LSRs is significantly large),
the root might receive a large number of notifications. The notifications from leaves to the root will not use resources
allocated for the monitored multicast flow and, as a result,
will not congest that particular flow, although they may negatively affect other flows.
However, the control plane of the ingress LSR might be congested by the BFD Control packets transmitted by egress LSRs and the process of generating
unicast BFD Control packets, as noted above. To mitigate that, a BFD implementation that supports this specification is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to use a rate limiter
of received BFD Control packets passed to the ingress LSR's control plane for processing.
</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
      This document does not introduce new security considerations but inherits all security considerations
      from <xref target="RFC5880" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC5884" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC7726" format="default"/>,
      <xref target="RFC8562" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8029" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC6425" format="default"/>.
      </t>

      <t>
      Also, BFD for P2MP MPLS LSPs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the requirements listed in <xref target="RFC4687" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1"/> to avoid congestion
      in the control plane or the data plane caused by the rate of generating BFD Control packets. An operator <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
      consider the amount of extra traffic generated by P2MP BFD when selecting the interval at which the
      MultipointHead will transmit BFD Control packets. The operator <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> consider the size of the packet the MultipointHead transmits
      periodically as using IP/UDP encapsulation, which adds up to 28 octets (more than 50% 
      of the BFD Control packet length) compared to G-ACh encapsulation.
      </t>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="iana-sec" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="iana-ipv6-addr-alloc-sec" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IPv6 Special-Purpose Address</name>
      <t>
      IANA has allocated the following in the "IANA
   IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" <xref target="IANA-IPv6-REG"/>:
      </t>

<!-- [rfced] An informative reference is listed for the "IANA IPv6 Special
Purpose Address Registry" in Section 7.1. Would you like to also add an
informative reference for the "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel
(G-ACh) Types" registry in Section 7.2?
-->


      <dl spacing="compact">
<dt>Address Block:</dt><dd>100:0:0:1::/64</dd>
<dt>Name:</dt><dd>Dummy IPv6 Prefix</dd>
<dt>RFC:</dt><dd>RFC 9780</dd>
<dt>Allocation Date:</dt><dd>2025-04</dd>
<dt>Termination Date:</dt><dd>N/A</dd>
<dt>Source:</dt><dd>True</dd>
<dt>Destination:</dt><dd>False</dd>
<dt>Forwardable:</dt><dd>False</dd>
<dt>Globally Reachable:</dt><dd>False</dd>
<dt>Reserved-by-Protocol:</dt><dd>False</dd>
      </dl>
      </section>
      
      <section anchor="iana-ach-sec" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Type</name>
    <t>
    IANA has allocated the following value in the "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types" registry <xref target="IANA-G-ACh-TYPES"/>.
      </t>
      <table anchor="p2mp-ach-table" align="center">
        <name>Multipoint BFD Session G-ACh Type</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Value</th>
            <th align="center">Description</th>
            <th align="left">Reference</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">0x0013</td>
            <td align="center">Multipoint BFD Session</td>
            <td align="left">RFC 9780</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      </section>
    </section>
    
  </middle>
  
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5884.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8029.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8287.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5586.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7212.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6425.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7726.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8562.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8563.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5883.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5885.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9026.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4687.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml"/>
         
<reference anchor="IANA-IPv6-REG" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry">
        <front>
            <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
        </reference>
<reference anchor="IANA-G-ACh-TYPES" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters">
        <front>
            <title>MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
        </reference>
        
      </references>
    </references>
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The authors sincerely appreciate the comments received from <contact
      fullname="Andrew Malis"/>, <contact fullname="Italo Busi"/>, and
      <contact fullname="Shraddha Hegde"/>. The authors also appreciate the
      thought-stimulating questions from <contact fullname="Carlos
      Pignataro"/>.</t>
    </section>
    
  </back>

<!-- [rfced] Abbreviations

a) We updated "p2mp" (lowercase) to "P2MP" (caps). The capitalized form is much
more common in published RFCs, including in RFCs 9026 and 6425, which are
normatively referenced by this document.

b) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Pseudowire (PW)
-->


<!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 

Dummy
-->
  
</rfc>
