draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14.txt   rfc8214.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Sami Boutros Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Boutros
Intended Status: Standard Track VMware Request for Comments: 8214 VMware
Ali Sajassi Category: Standards Track A. Sajassi
Samer Salam ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Salam
Cisco Systems Cisco
John Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
J. Rabadan J. Rabadan
Nokia Nokia
August 2017
Expires: November 15, 2017 May 14, 2017 Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN
Virtual Private Wire Service support in Ethernet VPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-14.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) can be used to
support Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN support the Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks.
enables the following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well EVPN accomplishes the following for VPWS: provides Single-Active as
as all-active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates well as All-Active multihoming with flow-based load-balancing,
the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast protection eliminates the need for Pseudowire (PW) signaling, and provides fast
convergence upon node or link failure. protection convergence upon node or link failure.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 (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
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology ................................................5
2 Service interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Service Interface ...............................................6
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface ...............................6
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface ..............................7
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface ........................7
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface ........................7
3. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. BGP Extensions ..................................................7
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community .................8
4 Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Operation ......................................................10
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling ................................11
6 Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Failure Scenarios ..............................................12
6.1 Single-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Single-Homed CEs ..........................................12
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Multihomed CEs ............................................12
7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations ........................................13
8 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations ............................................13
9 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References .....................................................13
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References ......................................13
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References ....................................14
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgements ..................................................16
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Contributors ......................................................16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses ................................................17
1 Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in This document describes how EVPN can be used to support VPWS in
MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS) MPLS/IP networks. The use of EVPN mechanisms for VPWS (EVPN-VPWS)
brings the benefits of EVPN to Point to Point (P2P) services. These brings the benefits of EVPN to Point-to-Point (P2P) services. These
benefits include single-active redundancy as well as all-active benefits include Single-Active redundancy as well as All-Active
redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, the use of redundancy with flow-based load-balancing. Furthermore, the use of
EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for traditional way of PW signaling EVPN for VPWS eliminates the need for the traditional way of PW
for P2P Ethernet services, as described in section 4. signaling for P2P Ethernet services, as described in Section 4.
[RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a [RFC7432] provides the ability to forward customer traffic to/from a
given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access given customer Attachment Circuit (AC), without any Media Access
Control (MAC) lookup. This capability is ideal in providing P2P Control (MAC) lookup. This capability is ideal in providing P2P
services (aka VPWS services). [MEF] defines Ethernet Virtual Private services (aka VPWS services). [MEF] defines the Ethernet Virtual
Line (EVPL) service as P2P service between a pair of ACs (designated Private Line (EVPL) service as a P2P service between a pair of ACs
by VLANs) and Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service, in which all (designated by VLANs) and the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service,
traffic flows are between a single pair of ports, that in EVPN in which all traffic flows are between a single pair of ports that,
terminology would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments ES(es). in EVPN terminology, would mean a single pair of Ethernet Segments
EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs. In delivering an ES(es). EVPL can be considered as a VPWS with only two ACs. In
EVPL service, the traffic forwarding capability of EVPN is based on delivering an EVPL service, the traffic-forwarding capability of EVPN
the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-discovery (A-D) routes; is based on the exchange of a pair of Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D)
whereas, for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], traffic forwarding routes, whereas for more general VPWS as per [RFC4664], the
capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a group of Ethernet AD traffic-forwarding capability of EVPN is based on the exchange of a
routes (one Ethernet AD route per AC/ES). In a VPWS service, the group of Ethernet A-D routes (one Ethernet A-D route per AC/ES). In
traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can be forwarded only to a VPWS service, the traffic from an originating Ethernet Segment can
a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no MAC lookup is needed be forwarded only to a single destination Ethernet Segment; hence, no
and the MPLS label associated with the per EVPN instance (EVI) MAC lookup is needed, and the MPLS label associated with the per-EVPN
Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user traffic to the instance (EVI) Ethernet A-D route can be used in forwarding user
destination AC. traffic to the destination AC.
For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is For both EPL and EVPL services, a specific VPWS service instance is
identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes which together identified by a pair of per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes that together
identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service identify the VPWS service instance endpoints and the VPWS service
instance. In the control plane the VPWS service instance is instance. In the control plane, the VPWS service instance is
identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by identified using the VPWS service instance identifiers advertised by
each Provider Edge node (PE). In the data plane the value of the MPLS each Provider Edge (PE) node. In the data plane, the value of the
label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send traffic MPLS label advertised by one PE is used by the other PE to send
for that VPWS service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard traffic for that VPWS service instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in
EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness within an standard EVPN, the VPWS service instance identifier has uniqueness
EVPN instance. within an EVPN instance.
For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based, For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for port-based,
VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero VLAN-based, and VLAN bundle interface mode and set to non-zero
Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for
VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a EVPN-VPWS, the Ethernet Tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set
non-zero value for all four service interface types. to a non-zero value for all four service interface types.
In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior,
VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when EVPN-VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that
a PE advertises per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance when a PE advertises a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service
serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS instance serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of
label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service the MPLS label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS
instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS encapsulated packet, the service instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS-encapsulated packet,
disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and the disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and
subsequently perform any required tag translation. For EVPL service, subsequently perform any required tag translation. For the EVPL
the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain service, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network
tagged with the originating VLAN-ID (VID) and any VID translation SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VLAN ID (VID), and any VID
MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For EPL service, the translation MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For the EPL
Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. service, the Ethernet frames are transported as is, and the tags
are not altered.
The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN
encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope encapsulation as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope
per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier
set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encap, the BGP set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encapsulation, the
Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D BGP Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D
route as described in [ietf-evpn-overlay]. The VXLAN VNI like the route as described in [EVPN-OVERLAY]. The VNI is like the MPLS label
MPLS label that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel Ethernet packets
Ethernet packets from all the service interface types defined in from all the service interface types defined in Section 2. The
section 2. The EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document has no EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document have no dependency on
dependency on the tunneling technology. the tunneling technology.
The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI The Ethernet Segment Identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI
route is not used to identify the service. However it can be used for route is not used to identify the service. However, it can be used
flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the for flow-based load-balancing and mass withdraw functions as per the
[RFC7432] baseline. [RFC7432] baseline.
As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast As with standard EVPN, the Ethernet A-D per-ES route is used for fast
convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is convergence upon link or node failure. The Ethernet Segment route is
used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multi-homed used for auto-discovery of the PEs attached to a given multihomed
Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them. Customer Edge node (CE) and to synchronize state between them.
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", "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
capitals, as shown here.
EVPN: Ethernet VPN EVPN: Ethernet VPN.
MAC: Media Access Control MAC: Media Access Control.
MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PE: Provide Edge Node. PE: Provider Edge Node.
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router AS: Autonomous System.
CE: Customer Edge device e.g., host or router or switch. ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router.
CE: Customer Edge device (e.g., host, router, or switch).
EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line. EVPL: Ethernet Virtual Private Line.
EPL: Ethernet Private Line. EPL: Ethernet Private Line.
EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN. EP-LAN: Ethernet Private LAN.
EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN. EVP-LAN: Ethernet Virtual Private LAN.
S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier. S-VLAN: Service VLAN identifier.
C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier. C-VLAN: Customer VLAN identifier.
VID: VLAN-ID. VID: VLAN ID.
VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service. VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service.
EVI: EVPN Instance. EVI: EVPN Instance.
P2P: Point to Point. P2P: Point to Point.
VXLAN: Virtual Extensible LAN. VXLAN: Virtual Extensible LAN.
DF: Designated Forwarder. DF: Designated Forwarder.
L2: Layer 2. L2: Layer 2.
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit. MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit.
eBGP: Exterior Border Gateway Protocol. eBGP: External Border Gateway Protocol.
iBGP: Internal Border Gateway Protocol. iBGP: Internal Border Gateway Protocol.
ES: Ethernet Segment on a PE refers to the link attached to it, this ES: "Ethernet Segment" on a PE refers to the link attached to it.
link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs in multi This link can be part of a set of links attached to different PEs
homed cases, or could be a single link in single homed cases. in multihomed cases or could be a single link in single-homed
cases.
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier. ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier.
Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multi-homed to two Single-Active Mode: When a device or a network is multihomed to two
or more PEs and when only a single PE in such redundancy group can or more PEs and when only a single PE in such a redundancy group
forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for a given can forward traffic to/from the multihomed device or network for a
VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to as "Single- given VLAN, then such multihoming or redundancy is referred to as
Active". "Single-Active".
All-Active: When a device is multi-homed to two or more PEs and when All-Active Mode: When a device is multihomed to two or more PEs and
all PEs in such redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the when all PEs in such a redundancy group can forward traffic
multi-homed device for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or to/from the multihomed device for a given VLAN, then such
redundancy is referred to as "All-Active". multihoming or redundancy is referred to as "All-Active".
VPWS Service Instance: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service VPWS Service Instance: A VPWS service instance is represented by a
labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is downstream pair of EVPN service labels associated with a pair of endpoints.
assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D Each label is downstream-assigned and advertised by the
per-EVI route. The downstream label identifies the endpoint on the disposition PE through an Ethernet A-D per-EVI route. The
disposition PE. A VPWS service instance can be associated with only downstream label identifies the endpoint on the disposition PE. A
one VPWS service identifier. VPWS service instance can be associated with only one VPWS service
identifier.
2 Service interface 2. Service Interface
2.1 VLAN-Based Service Interface 2.1. VLAN-Based Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds With this service interface, a VPWS instance identifier corresponds
to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a to only a single VLAN on a specific interface. Therefore, there is a
one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS one-to-one mapping between a VID on this interface and the VPWS
service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect service instance identifier. The PE provides the cross-connect
functionality between an MPLS LSP identified by the VPWS service functionality between an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) identified by
instance identifier and a specific <port,VLAN>. If the VLAN is the VPWS service instance identifier and a specific <port, VLAN>. If
represented by different VIDs on different PEs and different ES(es), the VLAN is represented by different VIDs on different PEs and
(e.g., a different VID per Ethernet segment per PE), then each PE different ES(es) (e.g., a different VID per Ethernet Segment per PE),
needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to its Ethernet then each PE needs to perform VID translation for frames destined to
segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames transported over an its Ethernet Segment. In such scenarios, the Ethernet frames
MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VID, and a transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the
VID translation MUST be supported in the data path and MUST be originating VID, and a VID translation MUST be supported in the data
performed on the disposition PE. path and MUST be performed on the disposition PE.
2.2 VLAN Bundle Service Interface 2.2. VLAN Bundle Service Interface
With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier With this service interface, a VPWS service instance identifier
corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE corresponds to multiple VLANs on a specific interface. The PE
provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label provides the cross-connect functionality between the MPLS label
identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of identified by the VPWS service instance identifier and a group of
VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN VLANs on a specific interface. For this service interface, each VLAN
is presented by a single VID which means no VLAN translation is is presented by a single VID, which means that no VLAN translation is
allowed. The receiving PE, can direct the traffic based on EVPN label allowed. The receiving PE can direct the traffic, based on the EVPN
alone to a specific port. The transmitting PE can cross-connect label alone, to a specific port. The transmitting PE can
traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the MPLS label. cross-connect traffic from a group of VLANs on a specific port to the
The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the originating MPLS label. The MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST remain tagged with the
VID. originating VID.
2.2.1 Port-Based Service Interface 2.2.1. Port-Based Service Interface
This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service This service interface is a special case of the VLAN bundle service
interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are mapped to the same
VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to VPWS service instance identifier. The procedures are identical to
those described in Section 2.2. those described in Section 2.2.
2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface 2.3. VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a
based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this VLAN-based service interface (defined in Section 2.1); thus, this
service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one
tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this tries to define data-plane and control-plane behavior for this
service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of
VLAN-based service. the VLAN-based service.
3. BGP Extensions 3. BGP Extensions
This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to This document specifies the use of the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route to
signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to signal VPWS services. The ESI field is set to the customer ES, and
the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 32-bit Ethernet Tag ID field MUST be set to the VPWS service
the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance identifier
identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value value MAY be set to a 24-bit value, and when a 24-bit value is used,
is used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services it MUST be right-aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services using a
using a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating that VPWS
that VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route
route with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be with its VPWS service instance identifier and will each be configured
configured with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When with the other PE's VPWS service instance identifier. When each PE
each PE has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the has received the other PE's per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS
VPWS service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the service instance is instantiated. It should be noted that the same
same VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs. VPWS service instance identifier may be configured on both PEs.
The Route-Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI The Route Target (RT) extended community with which the per-EVI
Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which Ethernet A-D route is tagged identifies the EVPN instance in which
the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice the VPWS service instance is configured. It is the operator's choice
as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a as to how many and which VPWS service instances are configured in a
given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be given EVPN instance. However, a given EVPN instance MUST NOT be
configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN multi- configured with both VPWS service instances and standard EVPN
point services. multipoint services.
3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community 3.1. EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be This document defines a new extended community [RFC4360], to be
included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is
mandatory if multihoming is enabled. mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
+------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| Type(0x06)/Sub-type(0x04)(2 octet)| | Type (0x06) / Sub-type (0x04) (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (2 octets) | | Control Flags (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| L2 MTU (2 octets) | | L2 MTU (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) | | Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 1: EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 attributes Control Flags 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining Figure 2: EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when
receiving this community.
Name Meaning The following bits in Control Flags are defined; the remaining
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when
receiving this community.
P If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it Name Meaning
indicates that the advertising PE is the Primary PE. ---------------------------------------------------------------
MUST be set to 1 for multihoming all-active scenarios by P If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios,
all active PE(s). this flag indicates that the advertising PE is the
primary PE. MUST be set to 1 for multihoming
All-Active scenarios by all active PE(s).
B If set to 1 in multihoming single-active scenarios, it B If set to 1 in multihoming Single-Active scenarios,
indicates that the advertising PE is the Backup PE. this flag indicates that the advertising PE is the
backup PE.
C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present C If set to 1, a control word [RFC4448] MUST be present
when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is recommended to when sending EVPN packets to this PE. It is
include the control word in the absence of Entropy Label. recommended that the control word be included in the
absence of an entropy label [RFC6790].
L2 MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) is a 2-octet value indicating the L2 MTU is a 2-octet value indicating the MTU in bytes.
MTU in bytes.
A received L2 MTU of zero means no MTU checking against local MTU is A received L2 MTU of zero means that no MTU checking against the
needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against local MTU and local MTU is needed. A received non-zero MTU MUST be checked against
if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as the local MTU, and if there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add
the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS service instance. the remote PE as the EVPN destination for the corresponding VPWS
service instance.
The usage of the Per ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its The usage of the per-ES Ethernet A-D route is unchanged from its
usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the usage in [RFC7432], i.e., the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the
ESI Label extended community will indicate if single-active or all- ESI Label extended community will indicate if Single-Active or
active redundancy is used for this ES. All-Active redundancy is used for this ES.
In multihoming scenarios, the B and P flags MUST be cleared. A PE
that receives an update with both B and P flags set MUST treat the
route as a withdrawal. If the PE receives a route with both B and P
clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE.
In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no Designated In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated
Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active Forwarder (DF) election, and all the PEs in the ES that are active
and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A and ready to forward traffic to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A
remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the P remote PE will do per-flow load-balancing to the PEs that set the
Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI. The B Flag in control flags P Flag for the same Ethernet Tag and ESI. The B Flag in
SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be Control Flags SHOULD NOT be set in the multihoming All-Active
ignored by receiving PE(s) if set. scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving PE(s) if set.
In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service In a multihoming Single-Active scenario for a given VPWS service
instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for instance, the DF election should result in the primary-elected PE for
the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag
clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and clear, the backup-elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and
the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal the B Flag set, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal
both P and B Flags clear. When the primary PE/ES fails, the primary both the P Flag and the B Flag clear. When the primary PE/ES fails,
PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS the primary PE will withdraw the associated Ethernet A-D routes for
service instance from the remote PE and the remote PEs should then the VPWS service instance from the remote PE, and the remote PE
send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the backup PE. DF should then send traffic associated with the VPWS instance to the
re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same ES, and there backup PE. DF re-election will happen between the PE(s) in the same
will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected backup PE that ES, and there will be a newly elected primary PE and newly elected
will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote PE SHOULD backup PE that will signal the P and B Flags as described. A remote
receive the P Flag set from only one Primary PE and the B Flag set PE SHOULD receive the P Flag set from only one primary PE and the B
from only one Backup PE. However during transient situations, a Flag set from only one backup PE. However, during transient
remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE will select situations, a remote PE receiving a P Flag set from more than one PE
the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding traffic. A will select the last advertising PE as the primary PE when forwarding
remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE will select traffic. A remote PE receiving a B Flag set from more than one PE
the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE MUST receive P will select the last advertising PE as the backup PE. A remote PE
Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding traffic. MUST receive a P Flag set from at least one PE before forwarding
traffic.
If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790] then the C Flag MUST If a network uses entropy labels per [RFC6790], then the C Flag
NOT be set and control word MUST NOT be used when sending EVPN- MUST NOT be set, and the control word MUST NOT be used when sending
encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP. EVPN-encapsulated packets over a P2P LSP.
4 Operation 4. Operation
The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed
with EVPN.
The following figure shows an example of a P2P service deployed with
EVPN.
Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet
Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native Native |<--------- EVPN Instance ----------->| Native
Service | | Service Service | | Service
(AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC) (AC) | |<-PSN1->| |<-PSN2->| | (AC)
| V V V V V V | | V V V V V V |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+ +----+ | | PE1 |======|ASBR1|==|ASBR2|===| PE3 | | +----+
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
| CE1| | | |CE2 | | CE1| | | |CE2 |
| |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| | | |-------+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+-------| |
+----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+ +----+ | | PE2 |======|ASBR3|==|ASBR4|===| PE4 | | +----+
^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^ ^ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ ^
| Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 | | Provider Edge 1 ^ Provider Edge 2 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| EVPN Inter-provider point | | EVPN Inter-provider point |
| | | |
|<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->| |<---------------- Emulated Service -------------------->|
Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model Figure 3: EVPN-VPWS Deployment Model
iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1 and ASBR3,
possibly via a BGP route-reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are iBGP sessions are established between PE1, PE2, ASBR1, and ASBR3,
established between PE3, PE4, ASBR2 and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are possibly via a BGP route reflector. Similarly, iBGP sessions are
established among PE3, PE4, ASBR2, and ASBR4. eBGP sessions are
established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4. established among ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, and ASBR4.
All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN Subsequent Address Family
Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- Identifier (SAFI) and exchange per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes, one route
AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP per VPWS service instance. For inter-AS option B, the ASBRs
attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP attribute set to their IP
between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link between the CE and the PE is
as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, as described in [802.1Q],
nested VLAN tags and it is configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, that can carry a single VLAN tag or two nested VLAN tags, and it is
one per VPWS service instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID configured as a trunk with multiple VLANs, one per VPWS service
used by the customer at either end of a VPWS service instance to instance. It should be noted that the VLAN ID used by the customer
identify that service instance may be different and EVPN doesn't at either end of a VPWS service instance to identify that service
perform that translation between the two values. Rather, the MPLS instance may be different, and EVPN doesn't perform that translation
label will identify the VPWS service instance and if translation is between the two values. Rather, the MPLS label will identify the
needed, it should be done by the Ethernet interface for each service. VPWS service instance, and if translation is needed, it should be
done by the Ethernet interface for each service.
For single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the For a single-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route,
ESI field is set to 0 and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the VPWS the ESI field is set to zero and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to the
service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL service. VPWS service instance identifier that identifies the EVPL or EPL
service.
For a multi-homed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route the For a multihomed CE, in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the
ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to ESI field is set to the CE's ESI and the Ethernet Tag ID is set to
the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value the VPWS service instance identifier, which MUST have the same value
on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a on all PEs attached to that ES. This allows an ingress PE in a
multihoming all-active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing multihoming All-Active scenario to perform flow-based load-balancing
of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all cases of traffic flows to all of the PEs attached to that ES. In all
traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric. cases, traffic follows the transport paths, which may be asymmetric.
The VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the Ethernet Tag ID Either (1) the VPWS service instance identifier encoded in the
in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST either be unique Ethernet Tag ID in an advertised per-EVI Ethernet A-D route MUST be
across all ASs, or an ASBR needs to perform a translation when the unique across all ASes or (2) an ASBR needs to perform a translation
per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from one AS when the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route is re-advertised by the ASBR from
to the other AS. one AS to the other AS.
A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw A per-ES Ethernet A-D route can be used for mass withdraw to withdraw
all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multi-home site all per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes associated with the multihomed site
on a given PE. on a given PE.
5 EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling 5. EVPN Comparison to PW Signaling
In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done In EVPN, service endpoint discovery and label signaling are done
concurrently using BGP. Whereas, with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label concurrently using BGP, whereas with VPWS based on [RFC4448], label
signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either signaling is done via LDP and service endpoint discovery is either
through manual provisioning or through BGP. through manual provisioning or through BGP.
In existing implementations of VPWS using pseudowires(PWs), In existing implementations of VPWS using PWs, redundancy is limited
redundancy is limited to single-active mode, while with EVPN to Single-Active mode, while with EVPN implementations of VPWS, both
implementation of VPWS both single-active and all-active redundancy Single-Active and All-Active redundancy modes can be supported.
modes can be supported.
In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to In existing implementations with PWs, backup PWs are not used to
carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among carry traffic, while with EVPN, traffic can be load-balanced among
different PEs multi-homed to a single CE. different PEs multihomed to a single CE.
Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the Upon link or node failure, EVPN can trigger failover with the
withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL withdrawal of a single BGP route per EVPL service or multiple EVPL
services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence services, whereas with VPWS PW redundancy, the failover sequence
requires exchange of two control plane messages: one message to requires the exchange of two control-plane messages: one message to
deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate deactivate the group of primary PWs and a second message to activate
the group of backup PWs associated with the access link. the group of backup PWs associated with the access link.
Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms Finally, EVPN may employ data-plane egress link protection mechanisms
not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local
AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route
by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the
backup PE. backup PE.
6 Failure Scenarios 6. Failure Scenarios
On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both single On a link or port failure between the CE and the PE for both
and multi-homed CEs, unlike [RFC7432] the PE MUST withdraw all the single-homed and multihomed CEs, unlike [RFC7432], the PE MUST
associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service instances on the withdraw all the associated Ethernet A-D routes for the VPWS service
failed port or link. instances on the failed port or link.
6.1 Single-Homed CEs 6.1. Single-Homed CEs
Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements
for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port
failure of this single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST withdraw
the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.
6.2 Multi-Homed CEs Unlike [RFC7432], EVPN-VPWS uses Ethernet A-D route advertisements
for single-homed Ethernet Segments. Therefore, upon a link/port
failure of a given single-homed Ethernet Segment, the PE MUST
withdraw the associated per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes.
For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- 6.2. Multihomed CEs
Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique
is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can
withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the
VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the
backup PE.
7 Acknowledgements For a faster convergence in multihomed scenarios with either
Single-Active redundancy or All-Active redundancy, a mass withdraw
technique is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D
route can withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to
switch all the VPWS service instances associated with this multihomed
ES to the backup PE.
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin Just like RFC 7432, the Ethernet A-D per-EVI route MUST NOT be used
Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar for traffic forwarding by a remote PE until it also receives the
Hussain, Alvaro Retana and Acee Lindem for their feedback and associated set of Ethernet A-D per-ES routes.
contributions to this document.
8 Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in The mechanisms in this document use the EVPN control plane as defined
[RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are equally in [RFC7432]. The security considerations described in [RFC7432] are
applicable. equally applicable.
This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support
data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] data-plane transport. The security considerations described in
and in [ietf-evpn-overlay] are equally applicable. [RFC7432] and in [EVPN-OVERLAY] are equally applicable.
9 IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type: IANA has allocated the following EVPN Extended Community sub-type:
SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME Reference
0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes [RFCXXXX] Sub-Type Value Name Reference
--------------------------------------------------------
0x04 EVPN Layer 2 Attributes RFC 8214
This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes This document creates a registry called "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes
Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the "RFC Control Flags". New registrations will be made through the
Required" procedure defined in [RFC5226]. "RFC Required" procedure defined in [RFC8126].
Initial registrations are as follows: Initial registrations are as follows:
P Advertising PE is the Primary PE. P Advertising PE is the primary PE.
B Advertising PE is the Backup PE. B Advertising PE is the backup PE.
C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present. C Control word [RFC4448] MUST be present.
10 References 9. References
10.1 Normative References
9.1. Normative References
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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
VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <http://www.rfc- Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432,
editor.org/info/rfc7432>. February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, [RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
RFC 4448, April 2006. Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", November 2012. L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc- Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
editor.org/info/rfc4271>. DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc- Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
editor.org/info/rfc4360>. February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., et al, "VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, August L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
2014 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
10.2 Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase [MEF] Metro Ethernet Forum, "EVC Ethernet Services Definitions
2", Technical Specification MEF 6.1, April 2008, Phase 3", Technical Specification MEF 6.2, August 2014,
https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_6.1.pdf <https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/
PDF/MEF_6.2.pdf>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006, Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>. DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[ietf-evpn-overlay] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization [EVPN-OVERLAY]
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-07.txt, Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
work in progress, December, 2016 Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08, March 2017.
[802.1Q] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridge Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6009146.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Zhang, Wen Lin, Nitin
Singh, Senthil Sathappan, Vinod Prabhu, Himanshu Shah, Iftekhar
Hussain, Alvaro Retana, and Acee Lindem for their feedback and
contributions to this document.
Contributors Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have also contributed to this document: coauthors have also contributed to this document:
Daniel Voyer Bell Canada Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
Patrice Brissette
Cisco Systems
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Thomas Beckhaus
Deutsche Telecom
Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de
Ryan Bickhart
Juniper Networks
Email: rbickhart@juniper.net
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Sami Boutros Sami Boutros
VMware, Inc. VMware, Inc.
Email: sboutros@vmware.com Email: sboutros@vmware.com
Ali Sajassi Ali Sajassi
Cisco Cisco Systems
Email: sajassi@cisco.com Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Samer Salam Samer Salam
Cisco Cisco Systems
Email: ssalam@cisco.com Email: ssalam@cisco.com
John Drake John Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Email: dws@steinbergnet.net
Patrice Brissette Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Cisco
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Thomas Beckhaus
Deutsche Telecom
Email: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de
Jorge Rabadan Jorge Rabadan
Nokia Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Ryan Bickhart Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Juniper Networks
Email: rbickhart@juniper.net
 End of changes. 128 change blocks. 
398 lines changed or deleted 437 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/