rfc9744.original | rfc9744.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
BESS Working Group A. Sajassi, Ed. | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Sajassi, Ed. | |||
Internet-Draft P. Brissette | Request for Comments: 9744 P. Brissette | |||
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems | Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems | |||
Expires: 21 June 2025 J. Uttaro | ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Uttaro | |||
AT&T | AT&T | |||
J. Drake | J. Drake | |||
Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||
S. Boutros | S. Boutros | |||
Ciena | Ciena | |||
J. Rabadan | J. Rabadan | |||
Nokia | Nokia | |||
18 December 2024 | February 2025 | |||
EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service | EVPN Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC) | |||
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12 | Service | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document describes a new EVPN VPWS service type specifically for | This document describes a new EVPN Virtual Private Wire Service | |||
multiplexing multiple attachment circuits across different Ethernet | (VPWS) service type specifically for multiplexing multiple attachment | |||
Segments and physical interfaces into a single EVPN VPWS service | circuits across different Ethernet Segments and physical interfaces | |||
tunnel and still providing Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing. | into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel and still providing Single- | |||
This new service is referred to as EVPN VPWS flexible cross-connect | Active and All-Active multi-homing. This new service is referred to | |||
service. This document specifies a solution based on extensions to | as the EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC) service. This document | |||
EVPN VPWS(RFC8214) which in turn is based on extensions to EVPN | specifies a solution based on extensions to EVPN VPWS (RFC 8214), | |||
(RFC7432). Therefore, a thorough understanding of RFC7432 and | which in turn is based on extensions to EVPN (RFC 7432). Therefore, | |||
RFC8214 are prerequisites for this document. | a thorough understanding of RFCs 7432 and 8214 are prerequisites for | |||
this document. | ||||
Requirements Language | ||||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | ||||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | ||||
"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. | ||||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This is an Internet Standards Track document. | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | ||||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | ||||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | ||||
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. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 June 2025. | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | ||||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9744. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the | |||
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described | |||
in the Revised BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Terminology | |||
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.2. Requirements Language | |||
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2. Requirements | |||
3.1. VPWS Service Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3. Solution | |||
3.2. Default Flexible Xconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.1. VPWS Service Identifiers | |||
3.2.1. Multi-homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.2. Default Flexible Xconnect | |||
3.3. VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.2.1. Multi-homing | |||
3.3.1. Local Switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.3. VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect | |||
3.4. Service Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.3.1. Local Switching | |||
4. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.4. Service Instantiation | |||
5. Failure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4. BGP Extensions | |||
5.1. EVPN VPWS Service Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5. Failure Scenarios | |||
5.2. Attachment Circuit Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5.1. EVPN VPWS Service Failure | |||
5.3. PE Port Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2. Attachment Circuit Failure | |||
5.4. PE Node Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.3. PE Port Failure | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.4. PE Node Failure | |||
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6. Security Considerations | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8. References | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8.1. Normative References | |||
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 8.2. Informative References | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | Contributors | |||
Authors' Addresses | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
[RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP | [RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver point-to-point (P2P) | |||
constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service | services using BGP constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this | |||
between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can | P2P service between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC | |||
designate on a PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a | can designate on a Provider Edge (PE), a port, a VLAN on a port, or a | |||
port. It also leverages multi-homing and fast convergence | group of VLANs on a port. It also leverages multi-homing and fast | |||
capabilities of [RFC7432] in delivering these VPWS services. | convergence capabilities of [RFC7432] in delivering these VPWS | |||
Multi-homing capabilities include the support of single-active and | services. Multi-homing capabilities include the support of single- | |||
all-active redundancy mode and fast convergence is provided using | active and all-active redundancy mode, and fast convergence is | |||
"mass withdrawal" message in control-plane and fast protection | provided using a "mass withdrawal" message in control plane and fast | |||
switching using prefix independent convergence in data-plane upon | protection switching using prefix-independent convergence in a data | |||
node or link failure [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic]. Furthermore, the use | plane upon node or link failure [BGP-PIC]. Furthermore, the use of | |||
of EVPN BGP constructs eliminates the need for multi-segment | EVPN BGP constructs eliminates the need for multi-segment pseudowire | |||
pseudowire auto-discovery and signaling if the VPWS service need to | auto-discovery and signaling if the VPWS service need to span across | |||
span across multiple ASes [RFC5659]. | multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) [RFC5659]. | |||
Service providers have very large number of ACs (in millions) that | Service providers have a very large number of ACs (in millions) that | |||
need to be backhauled across their MPLS/IP network. These ACs may or | need to be backhauled across their MPLS/IP network. These ACs may or | |||
may not require tag manipulation (e.g., VLAN translation). These | may not require tag manipulation (e.g., VLAN translation). These | |||
service providers want to multiplex a large number of ACs across | service providers want to multiplex a large number of ACs across | |||
several physical interfaces spread across one or more PEs (e.g., | several physical interfaces spread across one or more PEs (e.g., | |||
several Ethernet Segments) onto a single VPWS service tunnel in order | several Ethernet Segments) onto a single VPWS service tunnel in order | |||
to a) reduce number of EVPN service labels associated with EVPN-VPWS | to a) reduce the number of EVPN service labels associated with EVPN- | |||
service tunnels and thus the associated OAM monitoring, and b) reduce | VPWS service tunnels and thus the associated Operations, | |||
EVPN BGP signaling (e.g., not to signal each AC as it is the case in | Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) monitoring and b) reduce EVPN | |||
BGP signaling (e.g., not to signal each AC as it is the case in | ||||
[RFC8214]). | [RFC8214]). | |||
Service providers want the above functionality without sacrificing | Service providers want the above functionality without sacrificing | |||
any of the capabilities of [RFC8214] including single- active and | any of the capabilities of [RFC8214] including single-active and all- | |||
all-active multi-homing, and fast convergence. | active multi-homing and fast convergence. | |||
This document specifies a solution based on extensions to EVPN VPWS | This document specifies a solution based on extensions to EVPN VPWS | |||
([RFC8214]) to meet the above requirements. Furthermore, [RFC8214] | [RFC8214] to meet the above requirements. Furthermore, [RFC8214] is | |||
is itself based on extensions to EVPN ([RFC7432]). Therefore, a | itself based on extensions to EVPN [RFC7432]. Therefore, a thorough | |||
thorough understanding of [RFC7432] and [RFC8214] are prerequisites | understanding of [RFC7432] and [RFC8214] are prerequisites for this | |||
for this document. | document. | |||
1.1. Terminology | 1.1. Terminology | |||
AC: Attachment Circuit | AC: Attachment Circuit | |||
ES: Ethernet Segment | ES: Ethernet Segment | |||
ESI: Ethernet Segment Identififer | ESI: Ethernet Segment Identifier | |||
EVI: EVPN Instance Identifier | ||||
EVI: EVPN Instance Identifier | ||||
EVPN: Ethernet Virtual Private Network | EVPN: Ethernet Virtual Private Network | |||
Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per EVI and Ethernet A-D | Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery per EVI and Ethernet A-D per | |||
per ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214]. | ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214]. | |||
FXC: Flexible Cross Connect | FXC: Flexible Cross Connect | |||
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: Provider Edge device | PE: Provider Edge device | |||
VCCV: Virtual circuit connection verification | VCCV: Virtual Circuit Connection Verification | |||
VID: Vlan ID | VID: VLAN ID | |||
VPWS: Virtual private wire service | VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service | |||
VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table | VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table | |||
IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for IP lookup | IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for IP lookup | |||
MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for MAC lookup | MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for MAC lookup | |||
VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for Normalized VID | VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for Normalized VID lookup | |||
lookup | ||||
VPWS Service Tunnel: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service | VPWS Service Tunnel: It is represented by a pair of EVPN service | |||
labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is | labels associated with a pair of endpoints. Each label is | |||
downstream assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through | downstream assigned and advertised by the disposition PE through | |||
an Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per EVI route. The downstream | an Ethernet A-D per EVI route. The downstream label identifies | |||
label identifies the endpoint on the disposition PE. A VPWS | the endpoint on the disposition PE. A VPWS service tunnel can be | |||
service tunnel can be associated with many VPWS service | associated with many VPWS service identifiers where each | |||
identifiers where each identifier is a normalized VID. | identifier is a normalized VID. | |||
Single-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device or a network is | Single-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device or a network is multi- | |||
multi-homed to two or more PEs and when only a single PE in such | homed to two or more PEs and when only a single PE in such | |||
redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the multi-homed | redundancy group can forward traffic to/from the multi-homed | |||
device or network for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or | device or network for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or | |||
redundancy is referred to as "Single-Active". | redundancy is referred to as "Single-Active". | |||
All-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device or a network is | All-Active Redundancy Mode: When a device or a network is multi- | |||
multi-homed to two or more PEs and when all PEs in such redundancy | homed to two or more PEs and when all PEs in such redundancy group | |||
group can forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or | can forward traffic to/from the multi-homed device or network for | |||
network for a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is | a given VLAN, then such multi-homing or redundancy is referred to | |||
referred to as "All-Active". | as "All-Active". | |||
1.2. Requirements Language | ||||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | ||||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | ||||
"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. | ||||
2. Requirements | 2. Requirements | |||
Two of the main motivations for service providers seeking a new | Two of the main motivations for service providers seeking a new | |||
solution are: 1) to reduce number of VPWS service tunnels by | solution are: 1) to reduce the number of VPWS service tunnels by | |||
multiplexing large number of ACs across different physical interfaces | multiplexing a large number of ACs across different physical | |||
instead of having one VPWS service tunnel per AC, and 2) to reduce | interfaces instead of having one VPWS service tunnel per AC and 2) to | |||
the signaling of ACs as much as possible. Besides these two | reduce the signaling of ACs as much as possible. Besides these two | |||
requirements, they also want multi-homing and fast convergence | requirements, they also want the multi-homing and fast convergence | |||
capabilities of [RFC8214]. | capabilities of [RFC8214]. | |||
In [RFC8214], a PE signals an AC indirectly by first associating that | In [RFC8214], a PE signals an AC indirectly by first associating that | |||
AC to a VPWS service tunnel (e.g., a VPWS service instance) and then | AC to a VPWS service tunnel (e.g., a VPWS service instance) and then | |||
signaling the VPWS service tunnel via a Ethernet A-D per EVI route | signaling the VPWS service tunnel via an Ethernet A-D per EVI route | |||
with Ethernet Tag field set to a 24-bit VPWS service instance | with the Ethernet Tag field set to a 24-bit VPWS service instance | |||
identifier (which is unique within the EVI) and ESI field set to a | identifier (which is unique within the EVI) and the ESI field set to | |||
10-octet identifier of the Ethernet Segment corresponding to that AC. | a 10-octet identifier of the Ethernet Segment corresponding to that | |||
AC. | ||||
Therefore, a PE device that receives such EVPN routes, can associate | Therefore, a PE device that receives such EVPN routes can associate | |||
the VPWS service tunnel to the remote Ethernet Segment using the ESI | the VPWS service tunnel to the remote Ethernet Segment using the ESI | |||
field, and when the remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass | field. Additionally, when the remote ES fails and the PE receives | |||
withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], it | the "mass withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per | |||
can quickly update its BGP list of available remote entries to | [RFC7432], a PE device can quickly update its BGP list of available | |||
invalidate all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI field and achieve | remote entries to invalidate all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI | |||
fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast | field and achieve fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even | |||
convergence were not needed, there would still be a need for | if fast convergence was not needed, there would still be a need for | |||
signaling each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) | signaling each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) | |||
associated with the failed ES, so that the BGP path list for each of | associated with the failed ES so that the BGP path list for each of | |||
them gets updated accordingly and the packets are sent to backup PE | them gets updated accordingly and the packets are sent to a backup PE | |||
(in case of single- active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the | (in case of single-active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the | |||
redundancy group (in case of all-active multi-homing). In absence of | redundancy group (in case of all-active multi-homing). In the | |||
updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS service tunnel | absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS | |||
will be black-holed. | service tunnel will be black-holed. | |||
When a single VPWS service tunnel carries multiple ACs across various | When a single VPWS service tunnel carries multiple ACs across various | |||
Ethernet Segments (physical interfaces) without signaling the ACs via | Ethernet Segments (physical interfaces) without signaling the ACs via | |||
EVPN BGP to remote PE devices, those remote PE devices lack the | EVPN BGP to remote PE devices, those remote PE devices lack the | |||
information to associate the received Ethernet Segment with these ACs | information to associate the received Ethernet Segment with these ACs | |||
or with their local ACs. They also lack the association between the | or with their local ACs. They also lack the association between the | |||
VPWS service tunnel (e.g., EVPN service label) and the far-end ACs. | VPWS service tunnel (e.g., EVPN service label) and the far-end ACs. | |||
This means that while the remote PEs can associate their local ACs | This means that, while the remote PEs can associate their local ACs | |||
with the VPWS service tunnel, they cannot make similar associations | with the VPWS service tunnel, they cannot make similar associations | |||
for the far-end ACs. | for the far-end ACs. | |||
Consequently, in case of a connectivity failure to the ES, the remote | Consequently, in case of a connectivity failure to the ES, the remote | |||
PEs are unable to redirect traffic via another multi-homing PE to | PEs are unable to redirect traffic via another multi-homing PE to | |||
that ES. In other words, even if an ES failure is signaled via EVPN | that ES. In other words, even if an ES failure is signaled via EVPN | |||
to the remote PE devices, they cannot effectively respond because | to the remote PE devices, they cannot effectively respond because | |||
they do not know the relationship between the remote ES, the remote | they do not know the relationship between the remote ES, the remote | |||
ACs, and the VPWS service tunnel. | ACs, and the VPWS service tunnel. | |||
To address this issue when multiplexing a large number of ACs onto a | To address this issue when multiplexing a large number of ACs onto a | |||
single VPWS service tunnel, two mechanisms have been developed: one | single VPWS service tunnel, two mechanisms have been developed: one | |||
to support VPWS services between two single-homed endpoints, and | to support VPWS services between two single-homed endpoints and | |||
another to support VPWS services where one of the endpoints is multi- | another one to support VPWS services where one of the endpoints is | |||
homed. | multi-homed. | |||
For single-homed endpoints, it is acceptable not to signal each AC in | For single-homed endpoints, it is acceptable not to signal each AC in | |||
BGP because, in the event of a connection failure to the ES, there is | BGP because, in the event of a connection failure to the ES, there is | |||
no alternative path to that endpoint. However, the implication of | no alternative path to that endpoint. However, the implication of | |||
not signaling an AC failure is that the traffic destined for the | not signaling an AC failure is that the traffic destined for the | |||
failed AC is sent over the MPLS/IP core and then discarded at the | failed AC is sent over the MPLS/IP core and then discarded at the | |||
destination PE, thereby potentially wasting network resources. | destination PE, thereby potentially wasting network resources. | |||
This waste of network resources during a connection failure may be | This waste of network resources during a connection failure may be | |||
transient, as it can be detected and prevented at the application | transient, as it can be detected and prevented at the application | |||
layer in certain cases. Section 3.2 outlines a solution for such | layer in certain cases. Section 3.2 outlines a solution for such | |||
single-homing VPWS services. | single-homing VPWS services. | |||
For VPWS services where one of the endpoints is multi-homed, there | For VPWS services where one of the endpoints is multi-homed, there | |||
are two options: | are two options: | |||
1) to signal each AC via BGP, allowing the path list to be updated | 1. Signal each AC via BGP, allowing the path list to be updated upon | |||
upon a failure affecting those ACs. This solution is described in | a failure affecting those ACs. This solution is described in | |||
Section 3.3 and is referred to as the VLAN-signaled flexible cross- | Section 3.3 and is referred to as the "VLAN-signaled flexible | |||
connect service. | cross-connect service". | |||
2) to bundle several ACs on an ES together per destination endpoint | 2. Bundle several ACs on an ES together per destination endpoint | |||
(e.g., ES, MAC-VRF, etc.) and associate such a bundle with a single | (e.g., ES, MAC-VRF, etc.) and associate such a bundle with a | |||
VPWS service tunnel. This approach is similar to the VLAN-bundle | single VPWS service tunnel. This approach is similar to the | |||
service interface described in [RFC8214]. This solution is described | VLAN-bundle service interface described in [RFC8214]. This | |||
in Section 3.2.1. | solution is described in Section 3.2.1. | |||
3. Solution | 3. Solution | |||
This section specifies how to provide a new VPWS service between two | This section specifies how to provide a new VPWS service between two | |||
PE devices where a large number of ACs (such as VLANs) that span | PE devices where a large number of ACs (such as VLANs) that span | |||
across multiple Ethernet Segments (physical interfaces) on each PE | across multiple Ethernet Segments (physical interfaces) on each PE | |||
are multiplexed onto a single P2P EVPN service tunnel. Since the | are multiplexed onto a single P2P EVPN service tunnel. Since the | |||
multiplexing involves several physical interfaces, there can be | multiplexing involves several physical interfaces, there can be | |||
overlapping VLAN IDs across these interfaces. In such cases, the | overlapping VLAN IDs (VIDs) across these interfaces. In such cases, | |||
VLAN IDs (VIDs) must be translated into unique VIDs to prevent | the VIDs must be translated into unique VIDs to prevent collisions. | |||
collisions. Furthermore, if the number of VLANs being multiplexed | Furthermore, if the number of VLANs being multiplexed onto a single | |||
onto a single VPWS service tunnel exceeds 4095, then a single tag to | VPWS service tunnel exceeds 4095, then a single tag to double tag | |||
double tag translation must be performed. This translation of VIDs | translation must be performed. This translation of VIDs into unique | |||
into unique VIDs (either single or double) results in a "Normalized | VIDs (either single or double) results in a "Normalized VID". | |||
VID". | ||||
When a single normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the | When a single normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the | |||
Ethernet Tag ID field in EVPN routes MUST be set to that VID. When a | Ethernet Tag ID field in EVPN routes MUST be set to that VID. When a | |||
double normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the Ethernet Tag | double normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the Ethernet Tag | |||
ID field MUST be set to the inner VID, while the higher 12 bits are | ID field MUST be set to the inner VID, while the higher 12 bits are | |||
set to the outer VID. As stated in [RFC8214], 12-bit and 24-bit VPWS | set to the outer VID. As stated in [RFC8214], 12-bit and 24-bit VPWS | |||
service instance identifiers representing normalized VIDs MUST be | service instance identifiers representing normalized VIDs MUST be | |||
right-aligned. | right-aligned. | |||
Since there is only a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel associated with | Since there is only a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel associated with | |||
many normalized VIDs (either single or double) across multiple | many normalized VIDs (either single or double) across multiple | |||
physical interfaces, an MPLS lookup at the disposition PE is no | physical interfaces, an MPLS lookup at the disposition PE is no | |||
longer sufficient to forward the packet to the correct egress | longer sufficient to forward the packet to the correct egress | |||
endpoint or interface. Therefore, in addition to an EVPN label | endpoint or interface. Therefore, in addition to an EVPN label | |||
lookup corresponding to the VPWS service tunnel, a VID lookup (either | lookup corresponding to the VPWS service tunnel, a VID lookup (either | |||
single or double) is also required. At the disposition PE, the EVPN | single or double) is also required. At the disposition PE, the EVPN | |||
label lookup identifies a VID-VRF, and the lookup of the normalized | label lookup identifies a VID-VRF, and the lookup of the normalized | |||
VID(s) within that table identifies the appropriate egress endpoint | VIDs within that table identifies the appropriate egress endpoint or | |||
or interface. The tag manipulation (translation from normalized | interface. The tag manipulation (translation from normalized VIDs to | |||
VID(s) to the local VID) SHOULD be performed either as part of the | the local VID) SHOULD be performed either as part of the VID table | |||
VID table lookup or at the egress interface itself. | lookup or at the egress interface itself. | |||
Since the VID lookup (single or double) needs to be performed at the | Since the VID lookup (single or double) needs to be performed at the | |||
disposition PE, VID normalization MUST be completed prior to MPLS | disposition PE, VID normalization MUST be completed prior to MPLS | |||
encapsulation on the ingress PE. This requires that both the | encapsulation on the ingress PE. This requires that both the | |||
imposition and disposition PE devices be capable of VLAN tag | imposition and disposition PE devices be capable of VLAN tag | |||
manipulation, such as rewriting (single or double), addition, or | manipulation, such as rewriting (single or double), adding, or | |||
deletion (single or double) at their endpoints (e.g., their ESs, MAC- | deleting (single or double) at their endpoints (e.g., their ESs, MAC- | |||
VRFs, IP-VRFs, etc.). Operators should be informed of potential | VRFs, IP-VRFs, etc.). Operators should be informed of potential | |||
trade-offs from a performance standpoint, compared to typical | trade-offs from a performance standpoint, compared to typical | |||
pseudowire processing. | pseudowire processing. | |||
3.1. VPWS Service Identifiers | 3.1. VPWS Service Identifiers | |||
In [RFC8214], a unique value identifying the service is signaled in | In [RFC8214], a unique value identifying the service is signaled in | |||
the context of each PE's EVI. The 32-bit Ethernet Tag ID field MUST | the context of each PE's EVI. The 32-bit Ethernet Tag ID field MUST | |||
be set to this VPWS service instance identifier value. Translation | be set to this VPWS service instance identifier value. Translation | |||
at an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) is needed if re- | at an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) is needed if re- | |||
advertising to another AS affects uniqueness. | advertising to another AS affects uniqueness. | |||
For FXC, this same Ethernet Tag ID field value is an identifier which | For FXC, this same Ethernet Tag ID field value is an identifier that | |||
may represent: | may represent: | |||
* VLAN-Bundle Service Interface: a unique value for a group of VLANs | * VLAN-Bundle Service Interface: a unique value for a group of VLANs | |||
; | ||||
* VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface : a unique value for | * VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface: a unique value for individual | |||
individual VLANs, and is considered same as the normalized VID. | VLANs and is considered the same as the normalized VID | |||
Both the VPWS service instance identifier and normalized VID are | Both the VPWS service instance identifier and normalized VID are | |||
carried in the Ethernet Tag ID field of the Ethernet A-D per EVI | carried in the Ethernet Tag ID field of the Ethernet A-D per EVI | |||
route. For FXC, in the case of a 12-bit ID the VPWS service instance | route. For FXC, in the case of a 12-bit ID, the VPWS service | |||
identifier is the same as the single-tag normalized VID and will be | instance identifier is the same as the single-tag normalized VID and | |||
the same on both VPWS service endpoints. Similarly in the case of a | will be the same on both VPWS service endpoints. Similarly in the | |||
24-bit ID, the VPWS service instance identifier is the same as the | case of a 24-bit ID, the VPWS service instance identifier is the same | |||
double-tag normalized VID. | as the double-tag normalized VID. | |||
3.2. Default Flexible Xconnect | 3.2. Default Flexible Xconnect | |||
In this mode of operation, many ACs across several Ethernet Segments | In this mode of operation, many ACs across several Ethernet Segments | |||
are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel represented by | are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel represented by | |||
a single VPWS service ID. This is the default mode of operation for | a single VPWS service ID. This is the default mode of operation for | |||
FXC and the participating PEs do not need to signal the VLANs | FXC, and the participating PEs do not need to signal the VLANs | |||
(normalized VIDs) in EVPN BGP. | (normalized VIDs) in EVPN BGP. | |||
Regarding the data-plane aspects of this solution, the imposition | Regarding the data plane aspects of this solution, the imposition PE | |||
Provider Edge (PE) performs VID normalization and the disposition PE | performs VID normalization, and the disposition PE carries out VID | |||
carries out VID lookup and translation. Both imposition and | lookup and translation. Both imposition and disposition PE devices | |||
disposition PE devices MUST be aware of the VLANs through | MUST be aware of the VLANs through configuration. There should | |||
configuration. There should ideally be a single point-to-point (P2P) | ideally be a single point-to-point (P2P) EVPN VPWS service tunnel | |||
EVPN VPWS service tunnel between a pair of PEs for a specific set of | between a pair of PEs for a specific set of ACs. | |||
Attachment Circuits (ACs). | ||||
As previously mentioned, because the EVPN VPWS service tunnel is | As previously mentioned, because the EVPN VPWS service tunnel is | |||
employed to multiplex ACs across various Ethernet Segments (ESs) or | employed to multiplex ACs across various Ethernet Segments (ESs) or | |||
physical interfaces, the EVPN label alone is not sufficient for | physical interfaces, the EVPN label alone is not sufficient for | |||
accurate forwarding of the received packets over the MPLS/IP network | accurate forwarding of the received packets over the MPLS/IP network | |||
to egress interfaces. Therefore, normalized VID lookup is REQUIRED | to egress interfaces. Therefore, normalized VID lookup is REQUIRED | |||
in the disposition direction to forward packets to their proper | in the disposition direction to forward packets to their proper | |||
egress end-points; the EVPN label lookup identifies a VID-VRF, and a | egress endpoints; the EVPN label lookup identifies a VID-VRF, and a | |||
subsequent normalized VID lookup in that table identifies the egress | subsequent normalized VID lookup in that table identifies the egress | |||
interface. | interface. | |||
In this solution, for each PE, the single-homing ACs represented by | In this solution, for each PE, the single-homing ACs represented by | |||
their normalized VIDs are associated with a single VPWS service | their normalized VIDs are associated with a single VPWS service | |||
instance within a specific EVI. The generated EVPN route is an | instance within a specific EVI. The generated EVPN route is an | |||
Ethernet A-D per EVI route with an ESI of 0, and Ethernet Tag field | Ethernet A-D per EVI route with an ESI of 0, the Ethernet Tag field | |||
set to the VPWS service instance ID, and the MPLS label field set to | is set to a VPWS service instance ID, and the MPLS label field is set | |||
a dynamically generated EVPN service label representing the EVPN VPWS | to a dynamically generated EVPN service label representing the EVPN | |||
service tunnel. This route is sent with a Route Target (RT) that | VPWS service tunnel. This route is sent with a Route Target (RT) | |||
represents the EVI, which can be auto-generated from the EVI | that represents the EVI, which can be auto-generated from the EVI | |||
according to Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC8365]. Additionally, this route | according to Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC8365]. Additionally, this route | |||
is sent with the EVPN Layer-2 Extended Community defined in | is sent with the EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community defined in | |||
Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) | Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) | |||
that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel is for the default | that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel for the default Flexible | |||
Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus | Cross-Connect and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus double). | |||
double). The receiving PE uses these new flags for a consistency | The receiving PE uses these new flags for a consistency check and MAY | |||
check and MAY generate an alarm if it detects inconsistencies, but it | generate an alarm if it detects inconsistencies, but it will not | |||
will not disrupt the VPWS service. | disrupt the VPWS service. | |||
It should be noted that in this mode of operation, a single | It should be noted that in this mode of operation, a single Ethernet | |||
Ethernet A-D per EVI route is transmitted upon the configuration of | A-D per EVI route is transmitted upon the configuration of the first | |||
the first Attachment Circuit (AC) with the normalized VID. As | AC with the normalized VID. As additional ACs are configured and | |||
additional ACs are configured and associated with this EVPN VPWS | associated with this EVPN VPWS service tunnel, the PE does not | |||
service tunnel, the PE does not advertise any additional EVPN BGP | advertise any additional EVPN BGP routes and only locally associates | |||
routes and only associates locally these ACs with the pre-established | these ACs with the pre-established VPWS service tunnel. | |||
VPWS service tunnel. | ||||
3.2.1. Multi-homing | 3.2.1. Multi-homing | |||
The default FXC mode can also be used for multi-homing. In this | The default FXC mode can also be used for multi-homing. In this | |||
mode, a group of normalized VIDs representing ACs on a single | mode, a group of normalized VIDs representing ACs on a single | |||
Ethernet Segment, all destined to a single endpoint, are multiplexed | Ethernet Segment, all destined to a single endpoint, are multiplexed | |||
into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel which is identified by a | into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel, which is identified by a | |||
unique VPWS service ID. When employing the default FXC mode for | unique VPWS service ID. When employing the default FXC mode for | |||
multi-homing, rather than using a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel | multi-homing, rather than using a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel, | |||
there may be multiple service tunnels per pair of PEs. Specifically, | there may be multiple service tunnels per pair of PEs. Specifically, | |||
there is one tunnel for each group of VIDs per pair of PEs, and there | there is one tunnel for each group of VIDs per pair of PEs, and there | |||
can be many such groups between a pair of PEs, resulting in numerous | can be many such groups between a pair of PEs, resulting in numerous | |||
EVPN service tunnels. | EVPN service tunnels. | |||
3.3. VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect | 3.3. VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect | |||
In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described | In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described | |||
in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several | in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several | |||
Ethernet Segments/interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS | Ethernet Segments and interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN | |||
service tunnel. However, this single tunnel is represented by | VPWS service tunnel. However, this single tunnel is represented by | |||
multiple VPWS service IDs (one per normalized VID) and these | multiple VPWS service IDs (one per normalized VID), and these | |||
normalized VIDs are signaled using EVPN BGP. | normalized VIDs are signaled using EVPN BGP. | |||
In this solution, on each PE, the multi-homing ACs represented by | In this solution, on each PE, the multi-homing ACs represented by | |||
their normalized VIDs are configured with a single EVI. There is no | their normalized VIDs are configured with a single EVI. There is no | |||
need to configure a separate VPWS service instance ID in here, as it | need to configure a separate VPWS service instance ID in here, as it | |||
corresponds to the normalized VID. For each normalized VID on each | corresponds to the normalized VID. For each normalized VID on each | |||
Ethernet Segment, the PE generates an Ethernet A-D per EVI route | Ethernet Segment, the PE generates an Ethernet A-D per EVI route | |||
where the ESI field represents the ES ID, the Ethernet Tag field is | where the ESI field represents the ES ID, the Ethernet Tag field is | |||
set to the normalized VID, and the MPLS label field is set to a | set to the normalized VID, and the MPLS label field is set to a | |||
dynamically generated EVPN label representing the P2P EVPN service | dynamically generated EVPN label representing the P2P EVPN service | |||
tunnel. This label is the same for all ACs multiplexed into a single | tunnel. This label is the same for all ACs multiplexed into a single | |||
EVPN VPWS service tunnel. This route is sent with a Route Target | EVPN VPWS service tunnel. This route is sent with an RT representing | |||
(RT) representing the EVI. As before, this RT can be auto-generated | the EVI. As before, this RT can be auto-generated from the EVI per | |||
from the EVI per section Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC8365]. Additionally, | Section 5.1.2.1 of [RFC8365]. Additionally, this route includes the | |||
this route includes the EVPN Layer-2 Extended Community defined in | EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] | |||
Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) | with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) that indicate: 1) this | |||
that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel is for VLAN-signaled | VPWS service tunnel for VLAN-signaled Flexible Cross-Connect and 2) | |||
Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus | the normalized VID type (single versus double). The receiving PE | |||
double). The receiving PE uses these new flags for a consistency | uses these new flags for a consistency check and may generate an | |||
check and may generate an alarm if it detects inconsistency, but it | alarm if it detects inconsistency, but it will not disrupt the VPWS | |||
will not disrupt the VPWS service. | service. | |||
It should be noted that in this mode of operation, the PE sends a | It should be noted that in this mode of operation, the PE sends a | |||
single Ethernet A-D per EVI route for each AC that is configured. | single Ethernet A-D per EVI route for each AC that is configured. | |||
Each normalized VID that is configured per ES results in generation | Each normalized VID that is configured per ES results in generation | |||
of an Ethernet A-D per EVI. | of an Ethernet A-D per EVI. | |||
This mode of operation enabled automatic cross-checking of normalized | This mode of operation enabled automatic cross-checking of normalized | |||
VIDs used for Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) services because | VIDs used for Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) services because | |||
these VIDs are signaled in EVPN BGP. For instance, if the same | these VIDs are signaled in EVPN BGP. For instance, if the same | |||
normalized VID is configured on three PE devices (instead of two) for | normalized VID is configured on three PE devices (instead of two) for | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at line 471 ¶ | |||
receiving PE processes an Ethernet A-D per EVI route whose ESI is a | receiving PE processes an Ethernet A-D per EVI route whose ESI is a | |||
local ESI, the PE does not modify its forwarding state based on the | local ESI, the PE does not modify its forwarding state based on the | |||
received route. This approach ensures that local switching takes | received route. This approach ensures that local switching takes | |||
precedence over forwarding via the MPLS/IP network. This method of | precedence over forwarding via the MPLS/IP network. This method of | |||
prioritizing locally switched traffic aligns with the baseline EVPN | prioritizing locally switched traffic aligns with the baseline EVPN | |||
principles described in [RFC7432], where locally switched preference | principles described in [RFC7432], where locally switched preference | |||
is specified for MAC/IP routes. | is specified for MAC/IP routes. | |||
In such scenarios, the Ethernet A-D per EVI route should be | In such scenarios, the Ethernet A-D per EVI route should be | |||
advertised with the MPLS label either associated with the destination | advertised with the MPLS label either associated with the destination | |||
Attachment Circuit or with the destination Ethernet Segment in order | AC or with the destination Ethernet Segment in order to avoid any | |||
to avoid any ambiguity in forwarding. In other words, the MPLS label | ambiguity in forwarding. In other words, the MPLS label cannot | |||
cannot represent the same VID-VRF outlined in Section 3.3, as the | represent the same VID-VRF outlined in Section 3.3, as the same | |||
same normalized VID can be reachable via two Ethernet Segments. In | normalized VID can be reachable via two Ethernet Segments. In the | |||
the case of using an MPLS label per destination AC, this approach can | case of using an MPLS label per destination AC, this approach can | |||
also be applied to VLAN-based VPWS or VLAN-bundle VPWS services as | also be applied to VLAN-based VPWS or VLAN-bundle VPWS services as | |||
per [RFC8214]. | per [RFC8214]. | |||
3.4. Service Instantiation | 3.4. Service Instantiation | |||
The V field defined in Section 4 is OPTIONAL. However, if | The V field defined in Section 4 is OPTIONAL. However, if | |||
transmitted, its value may indicate an error condition that could | transmitted, its value may indicate an error condition that could | |||
lead to operational issues. In such cases, merely notifying the | lead to operational issues. In such cases, merely notifying the | |||
operator of an error is insufficient; the VPWS service tunnel must | operator of an error is insufficient; the VPWS service tunnel must | |||
not be established. | not be established. | |||
If both endpoints of a VPWS tunnel are signaling a matching | If both endpoints of a VPWS tunnel are signaling a matching | |||
Normalised VID in the control plane, but one is operating in single- | Normalized VID in the control plane, but one is operating in single- | |||
tag mode and the other in double-tag mode, the signaling of the V-bit | tag mode and the other in double-tag mode, then the signaling of the | |||
facilitates the detection and prevention of this tunnel's | V-bit facilitates the detection and prevention of this tunnel's | |||
instantiation. | instantiation. | |||
If single VID normalization is signaled in the Ethernet Tag ID field | If single VID normalization is signaled in the Ethernet Tag ID field | |||
(12 bits) yet dataplane is operating based on double tags, the VID | (12 bits), yet the data plane is operating based on double tags, the | |||
normalization applies only to outer tag. Conversely, if double VID | VID normalization applies only to the outer tag. Conversely, if | |||
normalization is signaled in the Ethernet Tag ID field (24 bits), VID | double VID normalization is signaled in the Ethernet Tag ID field (24 | |||
normalization applies to both the inner and outer tags. | bits), VID normalization applies to both the inner and outer tags. | |||
4. BGP Extensions | 4. BGP Extensions | |||
This draft uses the EVPN Layer-2 attribute extended community as | This document uses the EVPN Layer 2 attribute extended community as | |||
defined in [RFC8214] with two additional flags incorporated into this | defined in [RFC8214] with two additional flags incorporated into this | |||
Extended Community (EC) as detailed below. This EC is sent with | Extended Community (EC) as detailed below. This EC is sent with | |||
Ethernet A-D per EVI route per Section 3, and SHOULD be sent for both | Ethernet A-D per EVI route per Section 3 and SHOULD be sent for both | |||
Single-Active and All-Active redundancy modes. | Single-Active and All-Active redundancy modes. | |||
+-------------------------------------------+ | +-------------------------------------------+ | |||
| Type (0x06) / Sub-type (0x04) (2 octets) | | | 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) | | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at line 527 ¶ | |||
1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| MBZ | V | M | |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) | | MBZ | V | M | |C|P|B| (MBZ = MUST Be Zero) | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining | The following bits in the Control Flags are defined; the remaining | |||
bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when | bits MUST be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when | |||
receiving this community. | receiving this community. | |||
Name Meaning | +=======+==============================================+ | |||
--------------------------------------------------------------- | | Name | Meaning | | |||
B,P,C per definition in [RFC8214] | +=======+==============================================+ | |||
| B,P,C | per definition in [RFC8214] | | ||||
M 00 mode of operation as defined in [RFC8214] | +-------+----------------------------------------------+ | |||
01 VLAN-Signaled FXC | | M | 00 mode of operation as defined in [RFC8214] | | |||
10 Default FXC | | +----------------------------------------------+ | |||
| | 01 VLAN-Signaled FXC | | ||||
| +----------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 10 Default FXC | | ||||
+-------+----------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| V | 00 operating per [RFC8214] | | ||||
| +----------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 01 single-VID normalization | | ||||
| +----------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 10 double-VID normalization | | ||||
+-------+----------------------------------------------+ | ||||
V 00 operating per [RFC8214] | Table 1 | |||
01 single-VID normalization | ||||
10 double-VID normalization | ||||
The M and V fields are OPTIONAL. The M field is ignored at reception | The M and V fields are OPTIONAL. The M field is ignored at reception | |||
for forwarding purposes and is used for error notifications. | for forwarding purposes and is used for error notifications. | |||
5. Failure Scenarios | 5. Failure Scenarios | |||
Two examples will be used as an example to analyze the failure | The two following examples analyze the failure scenarios. | |||
scenarios. | ||||
The first scenario is a default Flexible Xconnect with Multi-Homing | The first scenario is a default Flexible Xconnect with a multi-homing | |||
solution and it is depicted in Figure 1. In this case, VID | solution, and it is depicted in Figure 1. In this case, VID | |||
Normalization is performed and a single Ethernet A-D per EVI route is | normalization is performed, and a single Ethernet A-D per EVI route | |||
sent for the bundle of ACs on an ES. That is, PE1 will advertise two | is sent for the bundle of ACs on an ES. That is, PE1 will advertise | |||
Ethernet A-D per EVI routes: the first one will identify the ACs on | two Ethernet A-D per EVI routes: The first one will identify the ACs | |||
port p1's ES and the second one will identify the AC2 in port p2's | on port p1's ES, and the second one will identify the AC2 in port | |||
ES. Similarly, PE2 will advertise two Ethernet A-D per EVI routes. | p2's ES. Similarly, PE2 will advertise two Ethernet A-D per EVI | |||
routes. | ||||
N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+ | N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+ | |||
PE1 | | | PE1 | | | |||
+---------+ IP/MPLS | | +---------+ IP/MPLS | | |||
+-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | sv.T1 + | +-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | sv.T1 + | |||
| CE1 |-------------| FXC |======+ PE3 +-----+ | | CE1 |-------------| FXC |======+ PE3 +-----+ | |||
| | /\ | | | | \ +----------+ +--| CE3 | | | | /\ | | | | \ +----------+ +--| CE3 | | |||
+-----+\ +||---| | sv.T2 \ | | 1/ | | | +-----+\ +||---| | sv.T2 \ | | 1/ | | | |||
VID3\ / ||---| |=====+ \ | +-----+ | / +-----+ | VID3\ / ||---| |=====+ \ | +-----+ | / +-----+ | |||
\ // \/ | +-----+ | \ +====| FXC |----+ | \ // \/ | +-----+ | \ +====| FXC |----+ | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at line 587 ¶ | |||
+-----+ / /\ | | | | / | +-----+ |\3 +-----+ | +-----+ / /\ | | | | / | +-----+ |\3 +-----+ | |||
| CE2 |-----||---| | | sv.T4 / | | \ | CE5 | | | CE2 |-----||---| | | sv.T4 / | | \ | CE5 | | |||
| |-----||---| | |======+ +----------+ +---| | | | |-----||---| | |======+ +----------+ +---| | | |||
+--VIDs3,4 \/ | +-----+ | | +-----+ | +--VIDs3,4 \/ | +-----+ | | +-----+ | |||
p4 +---------+ | | p4 +---------+ | | |||
PE2 | | | PE2 | | | |||
N.VID 1,2,3 +-------------------+ | N.VID 1,2,3 +-------------------+ | |||
Figure 1: Default Flexible Xconnect | Figure 1: Default Flexible Xconnect | |||
The second scenario, depicted in Figure 2, illustrates the | The second scenario, depicted in Figure 2, illustrates the VLAN- | |||
VLAN-signaled FXC mode with Multi-Homing. In this example: | signaled FXC mode with multi-homing. In this example: | |||
* CE1 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via (port,VID)=(p1,1) and (p3,3), | * CE1 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via (port,VID)=(p1,1) and (p3,3), | |||
respectively. CE1's VIDs are normalized to value 1 on both PEs, | respectively. CE1's VIDs are normalized to value 1 on both PEs, | |||
and CE1 is cross-connected to CE3's VID 1 at the remote end. | and CE1 is cross-connected to CE3's VID 1 at the remote end. | |||
* CE2 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via ports p2 and p4 respectively: | * CE2 is connected to PE1 and PE2 via ports p2 and p4, respectively: | |||
- The combinations (p2,1) and (p4,3) identify the ACs used to | - The combinations (p2,1) and (p4,3) identify the ACs used to | |||
cross-connect CE2 to CE4's VID 2, and are normalized to | cross-connect CE2 to CE4's VID 2 and are normalized to value 2. | |||
value 2. | ||||
- The combinations (p2,2) and (p4,4) identify the ACs used to | - The combinations (p2,2) and (p4,4) identify the ACs used to | |||
cross-connect CE2 to CE5's VID 3, and are normalized to | cross-connect CE2 to CE5's VID 3 and are normalized to value 3. | |||
value 3. | ||||
In this scenario, PE1 and PE2 advertise an Ethernet A-D per EVI route | In this scenario, PE1 and PE2 advertise an Ethernet A-D per EVI route | |||
for each normalized VID (values 1, 2 and 3). However, only two VPWS | for each normalized VID (values 1, 2, and 3). However, only two VPWS | |||
Service Tunnels are required: VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between | service tunnels are required: 1) VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) | |||
PE1's FXC service and PE3's FXC, and VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) | between PE1's FXC service and PE3's FXC and 2) VPWS Service Tunnel 2 | |||
between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC. | (sv.T2) between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC. | |||
N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+ | N.VID 1,2,3 +---------------------+ | |||
PE1 | | | PE1 | | | |||
+---------+ IP/MPLS | | +---------+ IP/MPLS | | |||
+-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | + | +-----+ VID1 p1 | +-----+ | + | |||
| CE1 |------------| FXC | | sv.T1 PE3 +-----+ | | CE1 |------------| FXC | | sv.T1 PE3 +-----+ | |||
| | /\ | | |=======+ +----------+ +--| CE3 | | | | /\ | | |=======+ +----------+ +--| CE3 | | |||
+-----+\ +||---| | | \ | | 1/ | | | +-----+\ +||---| | | \ | | 1/ | | | |||
VID3\ / ||---| | | \ | +-----+ | / +-----+ | VID3\ / ||---| | | \ | +-----+ | / +-----+ | |||
\ / /\/ | +-----+ | +=====| FXC |----+ | \ / /\/ | +-----+ | +=====| FXC |----+ | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at line 636 ¶ | |||
VIDs3,4 p4 +---------+ | | VIDs3,4 p4 +---------+ | | |||
PE2 | | | PE2 | | | |||
N.VID 1,2,3 +------------------+ | N.VID 1,2,3 +------------------+ | |||
Figure 2: VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect | Figure 2: VLAN-Signaled Flexible Xconnect | |||
5.1. EVPN VPWS Service Failure | 5.1. EVPN VPWS Service Failure | |||
The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via | The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via | |||
OAM mechanisms such as VCCV-BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | OAM mechanisms such as VCCV-BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection | |||
for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification, | for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification) | |||
[RFC5885]) and upon such failure detection, the switch over procedure | [RFC5885], and upon such failure detection, the switchover procedure | |||
to the backup S-PE is the same as the one described above. | to the backup Switching Provider Edge (S-PE) is the same as the one | |||
described above. | ||||
5.2. Attachment Circuit Failure | 5.2. Attachment Circuit Failure | |||
In the event of an AC failure, the VLAN-Signaled and default FXC | In the event of an AC failure, the VLAN-Signaled and default FXC | |||
modes exhibit distinct behaviors: | modes exhibit distinct behaviors: | |||
* Default FXC (Figure 1): in the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure | * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure | |||
is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure such as | is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as | |||
VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing | VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing | |||
traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. | traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. | |||
Application layer Operations, Administration, and Maintenance | Application layer OAM may be utilized if per-VLAN fault | |||
(OAM) may be utilized if per-VLAN fault propagation is necessary | propagation is necessary in this scenario. | |||
in this scenario. | ||||
* VLAN-Signaled FXC (Figure 2): in the case of a VLAN or AC failure | * VLAN-Signaled FXC (Figure 2): In the case of a VLAN or AC failure, | |||
such as VID1 on CE2, triggers the withdrawal of the Ethernet A-D | such as VID1 on CE2, this triggers the withdrawal of the Ethernet | |||
per EVI route for the corresponding Normalized VID, specifically | A-D per EVI route for the corresponding Normalized VID, | |||
Ethernet-Tag 2. Upon receiving the route withdrawal, PE3 will | specifically Ethernet-Tag 2. Upon receiving the route withdrawal, | |||
remove PE1 from its outgoing path list for traffic originating | PE3 will remove PE1 from its outgoing path list for traffic | |||
from CE4. | originating from CE4. | |||
5.3. PE Port Failure | 5.3. PE Port Failure | |||
In the event of a PE port failure, the failure will be signaled, and | In the event of a PE port failure, the failure will be signaled, and | |||
the other PE will assume forwarding in both scenarios: | the other PE will assume forwarding in both scenarios: | |||
* Default FXC (Figure 1): In the case of a port failure, such as p2, | * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the case of a port failure, such as p2, | |||
the route for Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) will be withdrawn. Upon | the route for Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) will be withdrawn. Upon | |||
receiving the fault notification, PE3 will remove PE1 from its | receiving the fault notification, PE3 will remove PE1 from its | |||
path list for traffic originating from CE4 and CE5. | path list for traffic originating from CE4 and CE5. | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at line 681 ¶ | |||
the withdrawal of the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for Normalized | the withdrawal of the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for Normalized | |||
VIDs 2 and 3, along with the withdrawal of the Ethernet A-D per ES | VIDs 2 and 3, along with the withdrawal of the Ethernet A-D per ES | |||
route for p2's ES. Upon receiving the fault notification, PE3 | route for p2's ES. Upon receiving the fault notification, PE3 | |||
will remove PE1 from its path list for the traffic originating | will remove PE1 from its path list for the traffic originating | |||
from CE4 and CE5. | from CE4 and CE5. | |||
5.4. PE Node Failure | 5.4. PE Node Failure | |||
In the case of PE node failure, the operation is similar to the steps | In the case of PE node failure, the operation is similar to the steps | |||
described above, albeit that EVPN route withdrawals are performed by | described above, albeit that EVPN route withdrawals are performed by | |||
the Route Reflector instead of the PE. | the route reflector instead of the PE. | |||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
Since this document describes a muxing capability which leverages | Since this document describes a muxing capability that leverages | |||
EVPN-VPWS signaling, no additional functionality beyond the muxing | EVPN-VPWS signaling, no additional functionality beyond the muxing | |||
service is added and thus no additional security considerations are | service is added, and thus no additional security considerations are | |||
needed beyond what is already specified in [RFC8214]. | needed beyond what is already specified in [RFC8214]. | |||
7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
This document requests allocation of bits 8-11 in the "EVPN Layer 2 | This document has allocated bits 8-11 in the "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes | |||
Attributes Control Flags" registry with names M and V: | Control Flags" registry with names M and V: | |||
M Signaling mode of operation (bits 10-11) | M Signaling mode of operation (bits 10-11) | |||
V VLAN-ID normalization (bits 8-9) | V VLAN-ID normalization (bits 8-9) | |||
8. References | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References | 8.1. 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, | 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>. | |||
skipping to change at page 16, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at line 723 ¶ | |||
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J. | [RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J. | |||
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet | Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet | |||
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, | VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>. | |||
8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic] | [BGP-PIC] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP | |||
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., and P. Mohapatra, "BGP Prefix | Prefix Independent Convergence", Work in Progress, | |||
Independent Convergence", Work in Progress, Internet- | Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-21, 7 July 2024, | |||
Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-21, 7 July 2024, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg- | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg- | |||
bgp-pic-21>. | bgp-pic-21>. | |||
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- | [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- | |||
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, | Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659>. | |||
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional | [RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional | |||
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual | Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual | |||
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, | Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>. | |||
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R., | [RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R., | |||
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization | Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization | |||
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365, | Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>. | |||
Appendix A. 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 substantially to this document: | co-authors have also contributed substantially to this document: | |||
Wen Lin | Wen Lin | |||
Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||
Email: wlin@juniper.net | ||||
EMail: wlin@juniper.net | ||||
Luc Andre Burdet | Luc Andre Burdet | |||
Cisco | Cisco | |||
Email: lburdet@cisco.com | ||||
EMail: lburdet@cisco.com | ||||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Ali Sajassi (editor) | Ali Sajassi (editor) | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
Email: sajassi@cisco.com | Email: sajassi@cisco.com | |||
Patrice Brissette | Patrice Brissette | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com | Email: pbrisset@cisco.com | |||
End of changes. 91 change blocks. | ||||
294 lines changed or deleted | 297 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |