draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-05.txt   draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-06.txt 
BESS Working Group R. Singh BESS Working Group R. Singh
INTERNET-DRAFT K. Kompella INTERNET-DRAFT K. Kompella
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Juniper Networks Intended Status: Proposed Standard Juniper Networks
Updates: RFC 4761 (once approved) S. Palislamovic Updates: 4761 (if approved) S. Palislamovic
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: January 3, 2019 July 2, 2018 Expires: February 18, 2019 August 17, 2018
Updated processing of control flags for BGP VPLS Updated processing of control flags for BGP VPLS
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-05 draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-06
Abstract Abstract
This document updates the meaning of the "control flags" fields This document updates the meaning of the "control flags" fields
inside the "layer2 info extended community" used for BGP-VPLS NLRI as inside the "layer2 info extended community" used for BGP-VPLS NLRI as
defined in [RFC4761]. defined in RFC4761. If approved, this document updates RFC4761.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Using p2mp LSP as transport for BGP VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Using p2mp LSP as transport for BGP VPLS . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Treatment of C and S bits in multi-homing scenarios . . . . . . 5 5 Treatment of C and S bits in multi-homing scenarios . . . . . . 5
5.1 Control word (C-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1 Control word (C-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2 Sequence flag (S-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2 Sequence flag (S-bit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6 Illustrative diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 Illustrative diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
[RFC4761] describes the concepts and signaling for using BGP (Border "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Gateway Protocol) to setup a VPLS (virtual private LAN service). It Signaling" ([RFC4761]) describes the concepts and signaling for using
specifies the BGP VPLS NLRI (network layer reachability information) BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) to setup a VPLS (virtual private LAN
by which a PE may require other PEs in the same VPLS to include (or service). It specifies the BGP VPLS NLRI (network layer reachability
not) control-word and sequencing information in VPLS frames sent to information) by which a PE may require other PEs in the same VPLS to
this PE. include (or not) control-word and sequencing information in VPLS
frames sent to this PE.
The use of control word (CW) helps prevent mis-ordering of IPv4 or The use of control word (CW) helps prevent mis-ordering of IPv4 or
IPv6 PW traffic over ECMP (equal cost multi-path) paths or LAG (link IPv6 PW traffic over ECMP (equal cost multi-path) paths or LAG (link
aggregation group) bundles. [RFC4385] describes the format for aggregation group) bundles. [RFC4385] describes the format for
control-word that may be used over point-2-point PWs (pseudowires) control-word that may be used over point-2-point PWs (pseudowires)
and over a VPLS. It along with [RFC3985] also describes sequencing of and over a VPLS. It along with [RFC3985] also describes sequencing of
frames. frames.
However, [RFC4761] does not specify the behavior of PEs in a mixed However, [RFC4761] does not specify the behavior of PEs in a mixed
environment where some PEs support control-word/sequencing and others environment where some PEs support control-word/sequencing and others
skipping to change at page 4, line 30 skipping to change at page 4, line 30
This memo updates the meaning of the C-bit and the S-bit in the This memo updates the meaning of the C-bit and the S-bit in the
control flags. control flags.
3.1 Control word (C-bit) 3.1 Control word (C-bit)
If a PE sets the C-bit in its NLRI, it means that the PE has ability If a PE sets the C-bit in its NLRI, it means that the PE has ability
to send and receive frames with a control word. If the PEs at both to send and receive frames with a control word. If the PEs at both
ends of a PW set the C-bit, control words MUST be used in both ends of a PW set the C-bit, control words MUST be used in both
directions of the PW. If both PEs send a C-bit of 0, control words directions of the PW. If both PEs send a C-bit of 0, control words
MUST not be used on the PW. These two cases behave as before. MUST NOT be used on the PW. These two cases behave as before.
However, if the PEs don't agree on the setting of the C-bit, control However, if the PEs don't agree on the setting of the C-bit, control
words MUST not be used on that PW but the PW MUST NOT be prevented words MUST NOT be used on that PW but the PW MUST NOT be prevented
from coming up due to this mismatch. So, the PW MUST still come up. from coming up due to this mismatch. So, the PW MUST still come up.
This behavior is new; the old behavior was that the PW doesn't come This behavior is new; the old behavior was that the PW doesn't come
up. up.
3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit) 3.2 Sequence flag (S-bit)
Current BGP VPLS specification do not allow for S-bit setting to be Current BGP VPLS specification do not allow for S-bit setting to be
negotiated either. If the PE sets the S-bit, it expects to receive negotiated either. If the PE sets the S-bit, it expects to receive
VPLS frames with sequence numbers, and will send the frames with VPLS frames with sequence numbers, and will send the frames with
sequence numbers as well. This memo further specifies the existing sequence numbers as well. This memo further specifies the existing
skipping to change at page 7, line 47 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Y. Rekhter, Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Y. Rekhter, Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling, (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling,
RFC 4761, January 2007. RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow G., Martini L., D. McPherson, [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow G., Martini L., D. McPherson,
Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word, Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word,
RFC 4385, February 2006. RFC 4385, February 2006.
9.2 Informative References
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., P. Pate, Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] Bryant, S., P. Pate, Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture, RFC3985, March 2005. Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture, RFC3985, March 2005.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ravi Singh Ravi Singh
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US US
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/