draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-02.txt   draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-03.txt 
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed. BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet Draft S. Sathappan Internet Draft S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track W. Henderickx Intended status: Standards Track W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
R. Shekhar R. Shekhar
N. Sheth A. Sajassi N. Sheth A. Sajassi
W. Lin Cisco W. Lin Cisco
M. Katiyar Juniper
Juniper A. Isaac A. Isaac
Juniper Juniper
M. Tufail M. Tufail
Citibank Citibank M. Katiyar
Versa Networks
Expires: February 17, 2018 August 16, 2017 Expires: August 27, 2018 February 23, 2018
Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-02 draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-03
Abstract Abstract
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control
plane may use ingress replication (IR) or PIM-based trees to convey plane may use ingress replication (IR) or PIM-based trees to convey
the overlay BUM traffic. PIM provides an efficient solution to avoid the overlay BUM traffic. PIM provides an efficient solution to avoid
sending multiple copies of the same packet over the same physical sending multiple copies of the same packet over the same physical
link, however it may not always be deployed in the NVO core network. link, however it may not always be deployed in the NVO core network.
IR avoids the dependency on PIM in the NVO network core. While IR IR avoids the dependency on PIM in the NVO network core. While IR
provides a simple multicast transport, some NVO networks with provides a simple multicast transport, some NVO networks with
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
5.3.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.2. Selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3.2. Selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. A PFL example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1. A PFL example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. AR Procedures for single-IP AR-REPLICATORS . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. AR Procedures for single-IP AR-REPLICATORS . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. AR Procedures and EVPN Multi-homing Split-Horizon . . . . . . . 20 8. AR Procedures and EVPN Multi-homing Split-Horizon . . . . . . . 20
9. Out-of-band distribution of Broadcast/Multicast traffic . . . . 21 9. Out-of-band distribution of Broadcast/Multicast traffic . . . . 21
10. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 14. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 17. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Problem Statement 1. Problem Statement
EVPN may be used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization EVPN may be used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization
skipping to change at page 21, line 35 skipping to change at page 21, line 35
o It is fully compatible with existing EVPN implementations and EVPN o It is fully compatible with existing EVPN implementations and EVPN
functions for NVO overlay tunnels. Optimized-IR NVEs and regular functions for NVO overlay tunnels. Optimized-IR NVEs and regular
NVEs can be even part of the same EVI. NVEs can be even part of the same EVI.
o It does not require any PIM-based tree in the NVO core of the o It does not require any PIM-based tree in the NVO core of the
network. network.
11. Conventions used in this document 11. Conventions used in this document
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation capitals, as shown here.
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
This section will be added in future versions. This section will be added in future versions.
13. IANA Considerations 13. IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated the following Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) IANA has allocated the following Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters: Parameters:
1) Allocation in the P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI 1) Allocation in the P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI
Tunnel) Tunnel Types registry: Tunnel) Tunnel Types registry:
skipping to change at page 23, line 10 skipping to change at page 23, line 4
was previously received from an overlay tunnel. was previously received from an overlay tunnel.
IR forwarding mode: it refers to the Ingress Replication behavior IR forwarding mode: it refers to the Ingress Replication behavior
explained in [RFC7432]. It means sending an AC BM packet copy explained in [RFC7432]. It means sending an AC BM packet copy
to each remote PE/NVE in the EVI and sending an overlay BM to each remote PE/NVE in the EVI and sending an overlay BM
packet only to the ACs and not other overlay tunnels. packet only to the ACs and not other overlay tunnels.
PTA: PMSI Tunnel Attribute PTA: PMSI Tunnel Attribute
RT-3: EVPN Route Type 3, Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route RT-3: EVPN Route Type 3, Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route
RT-11: EVPN Route Type 11, Leaf Auto-Discovery (AD) route RT-11: EVPN Route Type 11, Leaf Auto-Discovery (AD) route
15. References 15. References
15.1 Normative References 15.1 Normative References
[RFC6514]Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP [RFC6514]Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs",
RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, <http://www.rfc- RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6514>. editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7432]Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., [RFC7432]Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet
VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <http://www.rfc- VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015,
editor.org/info/rfc7432>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7902]Rosen, E. and T. Morin, "Registry and Extensions for P-
Multicast Service Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags", RFC 7902, DOI
10.17487/RFC7902, June 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7902>.
[RFC7902]Rosen, E. and Morin, T., "Registry and Extensions for P- [RFC7902]Rosen, E. and Morin, T., "Registry and Extensions for P-
Multicast Service Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags", June 2016, Multicast Service Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags", June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7902>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7902>.
[EVPN-BUM] Zhang et al., "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft- [EVPN-BUM] Zhang et al., "Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures", draft-
ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-01.txt, work in progress, ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-01.txt, work in progress,
December 2016. December 2016.
15.2 Informative References 15.2 Informative References
skipping to change at page 24, line 15 skipping to change at page 24, line 14
Nokia Nokia
777 E. Middlefield Road 777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Senthil Sathappan Senthil Sathappan
Nokia Nokia
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
Mukul Katiyar Mukul Katiyar
Juniper Networks Versa Networks
Email: mkatiyar@juniper.net Email: mukul@versa-networks.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Ravi Shekhar Ravi Shekhar
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: rshekhar@juniper.net Email: rshekhar@juniper.net
Nischal Sheth Nischal Sheth
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/