draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-03.txt   draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-04.txt 
BESS Z. Zhang BESS Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft W. Lin Internet-Draft W. Lin
Updates: 7432 (if approved) Juniper Networks Updates: 7432 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track J. Rabadan Intended status: Standards Track J. Rabadan
Expires: October 22, 2018 Nokia Expires: December 29, 2018 Nokia
K. Patel K. Patel
Arrcus Arrcus
A. Sajassi A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 20, 2018 June 27, 2018
Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-03 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies procedure updates for broadcast, unknown This document specifies procedure updates for broadcast, unknown
unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic in Ethernet VPNs (EVPN), unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic in Ethernet VPNs (EVPN),
including selective multicast, and provider tunnel segmentation. including selective multicast, and provider tunnel segmentation.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
2.1. Reasons for Tunnel Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Reasons for Tunnel Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Additional Route Types of EVPN NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Additional Route Types of EVPN NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. S-PMSI A-D route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. S-PMSI A-D route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Leaf-AD route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Leaf-AD route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Selective Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Selective Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Inter-AS Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Inter-AS Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Changes to Section 7.2.2 of RFC 7117 . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Changes to Section 7.2.2 of RFC 7117 . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. I-PMSI Leaf Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. I-PMSI Leaf Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Inter-Region Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3.1. Designated ASBR Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Area vs. Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Inter-Region Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Area vs. Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Per-region Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Per-region Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Use of S-NH-EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.3. Use of S-NH-EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. Ingress PE's I-PMSI Leaf Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.4. Ingress PE's I-PMSI Leaf Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Multi-homing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Multi-homing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
To be added To be added
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
RFC 7432 specifies procedures to handle broadcast, unknown unicast, RFC 7432 specifies procedures to handle broadcast, unknown unicast,
and multicast (BUM) traffic in Section 11, 12 and 16, using Inclusive and multicast (BUM) traffic in Section 11, 12 and 16, using Inclusive
skipping to change at page 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
carry traffic from the local AS to other ASes. Depending on the carry traffic from the local AS to other ASes. Depending on the
types of tunnels being used, the LIR flag in the PTA may be set, types of tunnels being used, the LIR flag in the PTA may be set,
in which case the downstream ASBRs and upgraded PEs will send Leaf in which case the downstream ASBRs and upgraded PEs will send Leaf
A-D routes to pull traffic from their upstream ASBRs. In a A-D routes to pull traffic from their upstream ASBRs. In a
particular downstream AS, one of the ASBRs is elected, based on particular downstream AS, one of the ASBRs is elected, based on
the per-region I-PMSI A-D routes for a particular source AS, to the per-region I-PMSI A-D routes for a particular source AS, to
send traffic from that source AS to legacy PEs in the downstream send traffic from that source AS to legacy PEs in the downstream
AS. The traffic arrives at the elected ASBR on the tunnel AS. The traffic arrives at the elected ASBR on the tunnel
announced in the best per-region I-PMSI A-D route for the source announced in the best per-region I-PMSI A-D route for the source
AS, that the ASBR has selected of all those that it received over AS, that the ASBR has selected of all those that it received over
EBGP or IBGP sessions. Details of the election procedure will be EBGP or IBGP sessions. The election procedure is described in
provided in a future revision. Section 5.3.1.
o In an ingress/upstream AS, if and only if an ASBR has active o In an ingress/upstream AS, if and only if an ASBR has active
downstream receivers (PEs and ASBRs), which are learned either downstream receivers (PEs and ASBRs), which are learned either
explicitly via Leaf AD routes or implicitly via PIM join or mLDP explicitly via Leaf AD routes or implicitly via PIM join or mLDP
label mapping, the ASBR originates a per-PE I-PMSI A-D route label mapping, the ASBR originates a per-PE I-PMSI A-D route
(i.e., regular Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route) into the (i.e., regular Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route) into the
local AS, and stitches incoming per-PE I-PMSI tunnels into its local AS, and stitches incoming per-PE I-PMSI tunnels into its
per-region I-PMSI tunnel. With this, it gets traffic from local per-region I-PMSI tunnel. With this, it gets traffic from local
PEs and send to other ASes via the tunnel announced in its per- PEs and send to other ASes via the tunnel announced in its per-
region I-PMSI A-D route. region I-PMSI A-D route.
Note that, even if there is no backward compatibility issue, the Note that, even if there is no backward compatibility issue, the
above procedures have the benefit of keeping all per-PE I-PMSI A-D above procedures have the benefit of keeping all per-PE I-PMSI A-D
routes in their local ASes, greatly reducing the flooding of the routes in their local ASes, greatly reducing the flooding of the
routes and their corresponding Leaf A-D routes (when needed), and the routes and their corresponding Leaf A-D routes (when needed), and the
number of inter-as tunnels. number of inter-as tunnels.
5.3.1. Designated ASBR Election
When an ASBR re-advertises a per-region I-PMSI A-D route into an AS
in which a designated ASBR needs to be used to forward traffic to the
legacy PEs in the AS, it SHOULD include a DF Election EC. The EC and
its use is specified in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework].
The AC-DF bit in the DF Election EC SHOULD be cleared. If it is
known that no legacy PEs exist in the AS, the ASBR SHOULD NOT include
the EC and SHOULD remove the DF Election EC if one is carried in the
per-region I-PMSI A-D routes that it receives. Note that this is
done for each set of per-region I-PMSI A-D routes with the same NLRI.
Based on the procedures in
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework], an election algorithm is
determined according to the DF Election ECs carried in the set of
per-region I-PMSI routes of the same NLRI re-adverised into the AS.
The algorithm is then applied to a candidate list, which is the set
of ASBRs that re-advertised the per-region I-PMSI routes of the same
NLRI carrying the DF Election EC.
6. Inter-Region Segmentation 6. Inter-Region Segmentation
6.1. Area vs. Region 6.1. Area vs. Region
RFC 7524 is for MVPN/VPLS inter-area segmentation and does not RFC 7524 is for MVPN/VPLS inter-area segmentation and does not
explicitly cover EVPN. However, if "area" is replaced by "region" explicitly cover EVPN. However, if "area" is replaced by "region"
and "ABR" is replaced by "RBR" (Regional Border Router) then and "ABR" is replaced by "RBR" (Regional Border Router) then
everything still works, and can be applied to EVPN as well. everything still works, and can be applied to EVPN as well.
A region can be a sub-area, or can be an entire AS including its A region can be a sub-area, or can be an entire AS including its
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 15, line 19
If multi-homing does not span across different ASes or regions, If multi-homing does not span across different ASes or regions,
existing procedures work with segmentation, and a segmentation point existing procedures work with segmentation, and a segmentation point
will remove the ESI label from the packets. If an ES is multi-homed will remove the ESI label from the packets. If an ES is multi-homed
to PEs in different ASes or regions, additional procedures are needed to PEs in different ASes or regions, additional procedures are needed
to work with segmentation. The procedures are well understood but to work with segmentation. The procedures are well understood but
omitted here until the requirement becomes clear. omitted here until the requirement becomes clear.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA has temporaritly assigned the following new EVPN route types: IANA has temporarily assigned the following new EVPN route types:
o 9 - Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route o 9 - Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route
o 10 - S-PMSI A-D route o 10 - S-PMSI A-D route
o 11 - Leaf A-D route o 11 - Leaf A-D route
This document requests IANA to assign one flag bit from the EVPN This document requests IANA to assign one flag bit from the EVPN
Multicast Flags Extended Community: Multicast Flags Extended Community:
skipping to change at page 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 16, line 25
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework]
Rabadan, J., satyamoh@cisco.com, s., Sajassi, A., Drake,
J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for EVPN
Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy]
Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Yeung, D., Drake, J., Sajassi, A., Thoria, S., Patel, K., Yeung, D., Drake, J.,
and W. Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf- and W. Lin, "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN", draft-ietf-
bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01 (work in progress), March bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 (work in progress), June 2018.
2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7117] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and [RFC7117] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014, (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 40 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/