draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-10.txt   draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-11.txt 
BESS Workgroup A. Sajassi, Ed. BESS Workgroup A. Sajassi, Ed.
INTERNET-DRAFT S. Salam INTERNET-DRAFT S. Salam
Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco
Updates: 7385 J. Drake Updates: 7385 J. Drake
6514 Juniper Juniper
J. Uttaro J. Uttaro
ATT ATT
S. Boutros S. Boutros
VMware VMware
J. Rabadan J. Rabadan
Nokia Nokia
Expires: November 9, 2017 May 9, 2017 Expires: November 12, 2017 May 12, 2017
E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN E-TREE Support in EVPN & PBB-EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-10 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-11
Abstract Abstract
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has defined a rooted-multipoint
Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). A solution Ethernet service known as Ethernet Tree (E-Tree). A solution
framework for supporting this service in MPLS networks is proposed in framework for supporting this service in MPLS networks is proposed in
RFC7387 ("A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a RFC7387 ("A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"). This document Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network"). This document
discusses how those functional requirements can be easily met with discusses how those functional requirements can be easily met with
Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and how EVPN offers a more efficient Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and how EVPN offers a more efficient
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 E-Tree Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 E-Tree Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Scenario 2: Leaf OR Root site(s) per AC . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Scenario 3: Leaf OR Root site(s) per MAC . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Operation for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Operation for EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1 Known Unicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a 3.2.1 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a
leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 leaf AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a 3.2.2 BUM traffic originated from a single-homed site on a
root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 root AC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
network. network.
[RFC7432] is a solution for multipoint L2VPN services, with advanced [RFC7432] is a solution for multipoint L2VPN services, with advanced
multi-homing capabilities, using BGP for distributing customer/client multi-homing capabilities, using BGP for distributing customer/client
MAC address reach-ability information over the MPLS/IP network. MAC address reach-ability information over the MPLS/IP network.
[RFC7623] combines the functionality of EVPN with [802.1ah] Provider [RFC7623] combines the functionality of EVPN with [802.1ah] Provider
Backbone Bridging (PBB) for MAC address scalability. Backbone Bridging (PBB) for MAC address scalability.
This document discusses how the functional requirements for E-Tree This document discusses how the functional requirements for E-Tree
service can be met with (PBB-)EVPN and how (PBB-)EVPN offers a more service can be met with (PBB-)EVPN and how (PBB-)EVPN offers a more
efficient implementation of these functions. Section 2 discusses E- efficient implementation of these functions. This document makes use
TREE scenarios. Section 3 and 4 describe E-TREE solutions for EVPN of the most significant bit of the scope governed by the IANA
and PBB-EVPN respectively, and section 5 covers BGP encoding for E- registry created by RFC7385, and hence updates RFC7385 accordingly.
TREE solutions. Section 2 discusses E-TREE scenarios. Section 3 and 4 describe E-TREE
solutions for EVPN and PBB-EVPN respectively, and section 5 covers
BGP encoding for E-TREE solutions.
1.1 Terminology 1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
2 E-Tree Scenarios 2 E-Tree Scenarios
This document categorizes E-Tree scenarios into the following three This document categorizes E-Tree scenarios into the following three
skipping to change at page 17, line 23 skipping to change at page 17, line 23
in this range are not to be assigned. The status of 0x7F may only be in this range are not to be assigned. The status of 0x7F may only be
changed through Standards Action [RFC5226]. changed through Standards Action [RFC5226].
9 References 9 References
9.1 Normative References 9.1 Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] T. Narten et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", May, 2008.
[RFC7387] Key et al., "A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS
Network", October 2014.
[MEF6.1] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase
2", MEF 6.1, April 2008.
[RFC7432] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", February, [RFC7432] Sajassi et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", February,
2015. 2015.
[RFC7623] Sajassi et al., "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with [RFC7623] Sajassi et al., "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", September, 2015. Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", September, 2015.
[RFC7385] Andersson et al., "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service [RFC7385] Andersson et al., "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service
Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", October, 2014. Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", October, 2014.
[RFC7153] Rosen et al., "IANA Registries for BGP Extended [RFC7153] Rosen et al., "IANA Registries for BGP Extended
Communities", March, 2014. Communities", March, 2014.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal et al., "BGP Encodings and Procedures for [RFC6514] Aggarwal et al., "BGP Encodings and Procedures for
Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", February, 2012. Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", February, 2012.
[RFC4360] Sangli et al., "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", [RFC4360] Sangli et al., "BGP Extended Communities Attribute",
February, 2006. February, 2006.
9.2 Informative References 9.2 Informative References
[RFC7387] Key et al., "A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS
Network", October 2014.
[MEF6.1] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase
2", MEF 6.1, April 2008.
[RFC4360] S. Sangli et al, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", [RFC4360] S. Sangli et al, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute",
February, 2006. February, 2006.
[RFC3032] E. Rosen et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", January 2001. [RFC3032] E. Rosen et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", January 2001.
[RFC7796] Y. Jiang et al, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual [RFC7796] Y. Jiang et al, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Virtual
Private LAN Service (VPLS)", March 2016. Private LAN Service (VPLS)", March 2016.
[EVPN-IRB] A. Sajassi et al, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in [EVPN-IRB] A. Sajassi et al, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in
EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-03, February 8, EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-03, February 8,
2017. 2017.
[RFC5226] T. Narten et al, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", May, 2008.
Appendix-A Appendix-A
When two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables per VLANs) are used for an E- When two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables per VLANs) are used for an E-
TREE service (one for root ACs and another for Leaf ACs) on a given TREE service (one for root ACs and another for Leaf ACs) on a given
PE, then the following complications in data-plane path can result. PE, then the following complications in data-plane path can result.
Maintaining two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables) per VLAN (when both Leaf Maintaining two MAC-VRFs (two bridge tables) per VLAN (when both Leaf
and Root ACs exists for that VLAN) would either require two lookups and Root ACs exists for that VLAN) would either require two lookups
be performed per MAC address in each direction in case of a miss, or be performed per MAC address in each direction in case of a miss, or
duplicating many MAC addresses between the two bridge tables duplicating many MAC addresses between the two bridge tables
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/