EVPN-VPWS Seamless Integration with Legacy VPWS
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi , Luc André Burdet , Jim Uttaro , Daniel Voyer , Iman Ghamari , Eddie Leyton | ||
| Last updated | 2021-03-11 | ||
| Replaces | draft-brissette-bess-vpws-seamless | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless-02
BESS Working Group P. Brissette, Ed.
Internet-Draft A. Sajassi
Intended status: Standards Track LA. Burdet
Expires: September 12, 2021 Cisco Systems
J. Uttaro
ATT
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
I. Ghamari
LinkedIn
E. Leyton
Verizon Wireless
March 11, 2021
EVPN-VPWS Seamless Integration with Legacy VPWS
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless-02
Abstract
This document specifies mechanisms for backward compatibility of
Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Service (EVPN-VPWS) solutions with
legacy Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS). It provides mechanisms
for seamless integration in the same MPLS/IP network on a per-
pseudowire or per flexible-crossconnect service basis.
Implementation of this document enables service providers to
introduce EVPN-VPWS PEs in their brown-field deployments of legacy
VPWS networks. This document specifies control-plane and forwarding
behaviour needed for auto-discovery of a pseudowire in order to
enable seamless integration between EVPN-VPWS and VPWS PEs.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2021.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Solution Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Seamless Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Forwarding and Control Plane Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Multi-homed Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1. Operations with Port-Active MH PEs . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.2. Operation with Single-Active MH PEs . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.3. Operation with All-Active MH PEs . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.3.1. Falling back to port-active . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.3.2. Asymmetric forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) is a widely-deployed Layer-2 VPN
(L2VPN) technology. Many service providers, who are looking at
adopting Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Service (EVPN-VPWS), want
to preserve their investment in the VPWS networks. Hence, they
require mechanisms by which EVPN-VPWS can be introduced into their
brown-field legacy VPWS networks without requiring any upgrades
(software or hardware) to these networks. This document specifies
control-plane and forwarding behaviour needed for auto-discovery of a
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
pseudowire in order to enable seamless integration between EVPN-VPWS
Provider Edge(PE) devices and PEs running legacy VPWS services in the
same MPLS/IP network.
MPLS/IP Core
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2| Legacy VPWS
| |----|---+ | +---+
+---+ | | |
EVPN-VPWS & | +--PW2---+ | +---+
Legacy VPWS | +--|---|PE3| EVPN-VPWS
(hybrid) | | +---+
+---------------+
Seamless Integration of EVPN-VPWS.
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a simple network where PE1 runs in hybrid mode (EVPN-
VPWS and legacy VPWS). It provides a pseudowire (PW1) with PE2
running legacy VPWS. It also provides a pseudowire (PW2) with PE3
running EVPN-VPWS. PE2 may be upgraded to EVPN-VPWS seamlessly.
Legacy PEs may be setting up PWs per [RFC8077] or may be setting up a
VPWS service by first auto-discovering VPN members using [RFC6074]
and then setting up the PWs using [RFC8077] or [RFC6624].
The seamless integration solution described in this document has the
following attributes:
- It is backward compatible with [RFC8214] and EVPN Flexible
crossconnect Service [evpn_fxc] document.
- New PEs can leverage the multi-homing mechanisms and provisioning
simplifications of EVPN Ethernet-Segment:
a. Auto-sensing of MHN / MHD
b. Auto-discovery of redundancy group
c. Auto-election of Designated Forwarder and VLAN carving
d. Support of various load-balancing mode such as port-active,
single-active and all-active
Figure 2 illustrates how legacy VPWS brown-field network migration to
EVPN-VPWS is achieved. For example, let say PE1 and PE2 have a
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
legacy PW established between them. First, network operator may
upgrade PE2 to support EVPN-VPWS. Once upgraded, PE2 which now have
the EVPN-VPWS capability still runs legacy VPWS PW with PE1. Later
on, network operator may decide to upgrade PE1 to support EVPN-VPWS.
As soon as the upgrade is completed, EVPN-VPWS service takes high-
precedence over legacy VPWS network. The network operator can safely
remove any legacy configuration related to that PW from PE1 and PE2
nodes. PW remains established as an EVPN-VPWS service.
MPLS/IP Core
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2|
+---+ | Legacy | +---+
Legacy | | Legacy
VPWS +---------------+ VPWS
....
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2|
+---+ | Legacy | +---+
Legacy | | Legacy VPWS
VPWS +---------------+ + EVPN-VPWS
....
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2|
+---+ | EVPN-VPWS | +---+
Legacy VPWS | | Legacy VPWS
+ EVPN-VPWS +---------------+ + EVPN-VPWS
....
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2|
+---+ | EVPN-VPWS | +---+
EVPN-VPWS | | EVPN-VPWS
+---------------+
Migration from Legacy to EVPN-VPWS.
Figure 2
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
2. Terms and Abbreviations
o CE: A Customer Edge device, e.g., a host, router, or switch.
o DF: EVPN Ethernet Segment Designated Forwarder.
o NDF: EVPN Ethernet Segment Non-Designated Forwarder.
o Ethernet Segment (ES): Refers to the set of Ethernet links that
connects a customer site (device or network) to one or more PEs.
o Ethernet Tag: An Ethernet Tag identifies a particular pseudowire,
e.g. a PW-ID as per [RFC8214].
o FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class.
o LDP-LM: LDP Label Mapping Message.
o LDP-LW: LDP Label Withdraw Message.
o LSP: Label Switched Path.
o MHD: Multi-Homed Device.
o MHN: Multi-Homed Network.
o P2P: Point to Point - a P2P LSP typically refers to a LSP for
Layer2 pseudowire.
o PE: Provider Edge device.
o VPWS: Virtual Private Wire Service. It refers to legacy VPWS
circuit where pseudowires are signalled using LDP or BGP-AD
protocol. The latter is referred as VPWS A-D.
o EVPN-VPWS: Ethernet-VPN Virtual Private Wire Service. It refers
to EVPN-VPWS circuit where pseudowires are signalled via BGP-EVPN.
It can also refer to [evpn_fxc].
o EVPN-FXC: Ethernet-VPN Flexible Cross-connect Service [evpn_fxc].
o Port-Active Redundancy Mode: When only a single PE, among all the
PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is allowed to forward traffic
to/from that Ethernet segment for a given interface, then the
Ethernet Segment is defined to be operating in Port-Active
redundancy mode.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
o Single-Active Redundancy Mode: When only a single PE, among all
the PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is allowed to forward
traffic to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN, then the
Ethernet Segment is defined to be operating in Single-Active
redundancy mode.
o All-Active Redundancy Mode: When all PEs attached to an Ethernet
Segment are allowed to forward traffic to/from that Ethernet
segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet segment is defined to
be operating in All-Active redundancy mode.
o VPWS A-D: refers to Virtual Private Wire Services with BGP-based
Auto Discovery as in [RFC6074].
o PW: Pseudowire
3. Solution Requirements
Following are the key requirements for backward compatibility between
EVPN-VPWS and VPWS:
o The solution MUST allow for staged migration towards EVPN-VPWS on
a site-by-site basis - e.g., new EVPN-VPWS sites to be provisioned
on EVPN-VPWS Provider Edge devices (PEs). Migration SHOULD be
possible on a per-pseudowire basis.
o The solution MUST NOT require any changes to existing Legacy VPWS
or PEs, unless it is to upgrade them to EVPN-VPWS.
o The solution MUST allow for the co-existence of PE devices running
EVPN-VPWS and VPWS for the same single-homed and/or multi-homed
segments.
o The solution MUST support port-active redundancy of multi-homed
networks and multi-homed devices for EVPN-VPWS PEs.
o The solution MUST support single-active redundancy of multi-homed
networks and multi-homed devices for EVPN-VPWS PEs.
o The solution SHOULD support all-active redundancy of multi-homed
Ethernet Segments for EVPN-VPWS PEs.
These requirements collectively allow for the seamless insertion of
the EVPN-VPWS technology into brown-field VPWS deployments.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
4. Seamless Integration
In order to support seamless integration with Legacy PEs, this
document may require Legacy PEs to setup PWs per [RFC8077] or may
require Legacy PEs to setup VPWS service by auto-discovering VPN
members using [RFC6074] and then setting up the PWs using [RFC8077]
or [RFC6624]. Furthermore, EVPN-VPWS PEs must support BGP EVPN
routes per [RFC8214] and one of method of legacy VPWS technologies.
All the logic for seamless integration SHALL reside on the EVPN-VPWS
PEs.
5. Capability Discovery
The EVPN-VPWS PEs MUST advertise both BGP VPWS Auto-Discovery (VPWS
A-D) route or LDP-LM message as well as the BGP EVPN Ethernet-AD per
EVI route for a given pseudowire.
In the case of VPWS PEs running VPWS A-D, they may advertise the BGP
VPWS A-D route, per the procedures specified in [RFC4664] and
[RFC6074]. The operator may decide to use the same BGP Route Target
(RT) to identify a pseudowire on both EVPN-VPWS and VPWS networks.
In this case, when a VPWS PE receives the EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI
route, it MUST ignore it on the basis that it belongs to an unknown
SAFI. However, the operator may choose to use two RTs - one to
identify the pseudowire on VPWS network and another for EVPN-VPWS
network and employ RT-constrained [RFC4684] in order to prevent BGP
EVPN routes from reaching the VPWS PEs.
When an EVPN-VPWS PE receives both a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM
message as well as an EVPN-VPWS Ethernet-AD per EVI route from a
given remote PE for the same pseudowire, it MUST give preference to
the EVPN-VPWS route for the purpose of discovery. This ensures that,
at the end of the route exchange, all EVPN-VPWS capable PEs discover
other EVPN-VPWS capable PEs. Furthermore, all the VPWS-only PEs
discover the EVPN-VPWS PEs as if they are standard VPWS PEs. In
other words, when the discovery phase is completed, the EVPN-VPWS PEs
have discovered the remote PE per pseudowire along with their
associated capability (EVPN-VPWS or VPWS-only), whereas the VPWS PE
have discovered the remote PE per pseudowire as if it is VPWS-only
PEs.
6. Forwarding and Control Plane Operations
Figure 3 demonstrates a typical brown-field deployment where PE2 is a
legacy PE and PE1 is an EVPN-VPWS PE.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
EVPN-VPWS & MPLS/IP
Legacy VPWS Core Legacy VPWS
+---------------+
+---+ | | +---+
|PE1|----|----- PW1 -----|---|PE2|
+---+ | | +---+
+---------------+
VPWS A-D route ] TX TX [ VPWS A-D route
or ] ---> <--- [ or
LDP Label Mapping ] [ LDP Label Mapping
AND
TX
EVPN per EVI/EAD ] --->
EVPN-VPWS Single-Homed
Figure 3
The forwarding state setup procedures over VPWS PEs are per
[RFC8077], [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].
The EVPN-VPWS PE procedures are as follow:
o The EVPN-VPWS PE MUST establish a PW to each remote PE from which
it has received only a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message for the
corresponding pseudowire, and MUST set up the label stack
corresponding to the PW FEC.
o If an EVPN-VPWS PE receives a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message
from a given PE, it sets up a Legacy VPWS PW to that PE. If it
then receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route for that PW from
the same PE, then the EVPN-VPWS PE may bring the Legacy PW
operationally down and MUST forward traffic using the label
information from the EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route.
o If an EVPN-VPWS PE receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route
followed by a VPWS A-D route or a LDP-LM message from the same PE,
then the EVPN-VPWS PE will setup the EVPN-VPWS PW. It may keep
the Legacy VPWS PW operationally down and MUST forward traffic
using the reachability information from that EVPN Ethernet-AD per
EVI route.
o For VPWS PEs not using VPWS A-D or LDP signalling, the EVPN-VPWS
PEs need to be provisioned manually with PWs to those remote VPWS
PEs for each pseudowire. In that case, if an EVPN-VPWS PE
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
receives an EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route from a PE to which a PW
exists, it may keep VPWS PW operationally down and MUST forward
traffic using the reachability information from that EVPN
Ethernet-AD per EVI route.
6.1. Multi-homed Operations
Figure 4 below demonstrates multi-homing scenarios. CE1 is connected
to PE1 and PE2 where PE1 is the designated forwarder while PE2 is the
non designated forwarder.
EVPN-VPWS & MPLS/IP
Legacy VPWS Core Legacy VPWS
+---------+
DF +---+ | | +---+ +---+
+--|PE1|----|---------|---|PE3|---|CE2|
+---+/ +---+ | PW1 /| +---+ +---+
|CE1| | / |
+---+\ +---+ | / |
+--|PE2|----|-----+ |
NDF +---+ | |
+---------+
EVPN-VPWS Port-Active Redundancy
Figure 4
6.1.1. Operations with Port-Active MH PEs
In Figure 4, PE1 and PE2 are configured in port-active load-balancing
mode. Both PEs are advertising EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with
the single-active bit set as described in EVPN port-active document
[evpn_pa]. In this example PE1 is DF elected for the shared Ethernet
Segment identifier.
o Only PE1, as DF, advertises the VPWS A-D route or LDP-LM message
towards remote PE3.
o PE1 advertises the EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route for PW1 towards
remote PE3. The P-bit in L2 Attributes Extended Community is set
for PE1 as per [RFC8214]. The purpose is to have all required
EVPN-VPWS routes on remote PE so during an upgrade from Legacy
VPWS to EVPN-VPWS, those remote nodes are immediately upgraded.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
o PE2, as NDF, only advertises its EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route
corresponding to that same PW1. The B-bit in L2 Attributes
Extended Community is set for PE2 as per [RFC8214]
Upon link failure between CE1 and PE1, PE1 and PE2 follows EVPN
Ethernet Segment DF Election procedures described in [RFC8214] for
EVPN-VPWS. Furthermore, PE1 withdraws its VPWS A-D route or sends
LDP-LW message to remote PE3 to teardown the Legacy PW. Finally, PE2
advertises corresponding VPWS A-D route or LDP-LM message for that
PW1 and re-establish Legacy PW with new PE2 destination.
If PE3 is running 2-way pseudowire redundancy and PW-status is
enabled, PE2 may leverage the existence of standby/backup PW with
PE3. In this particular scenario, PE2 may advertise VPWS A-D route
or LDP-LM message along with PW-status message.
Once PE3 is upgraded and supports EVPN-VPWS, seamless integration
procedures are applied. Higher precedence of EVPN-VPWS over VPWS
allow all PEs to avoid the usage of legacy circuit. At that point in
time, non-preferred legacy VPWS protocols and configuration may be
removed from all PEs.
6.1.2. Operation with Single-Active MH PEs
Single-active operation is similar to Port-active load-balancing mode
described above but at the VLAN level instead being of at the port/
interface level.
The main difference resides on the support of Legacy PW VC-type 4 vs
PW VC-Type 5 mode on the EVPN-VPWS PE as per [RFC4448]. While
services running in port-active load-balancing mode require raw mode,
services running single-active load-balancing mode use tagged mode.
6.1.3. Operation with All-Active MH PEs
In EVPN-VPWS all-active load-balancing mode, all PEs participating in
a redundancy group forward traffic bidirectionally, reducing the
importance of DF and NDF PE. However PEs running Legacy VPWS do NOT
support all-active peering PEs as remote endpoint.
6.1.3.1. Falling back to port-active
EVPN-VPWS PE discovering remote PE running VPWS PW MAY fallback into
port-active load-balancing mode. In that case, following rules are
applied:
o Peering PEs advertise EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with the
single-active bit set. They also advertise EVPN Ethernet-AD per
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
EVI route towards PE3 with P/B bit set accordingly as per
[RFC8214].
o DF PE advertises VPWS AD routes or LDP-LM message and EVPN
Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.
o NDF PE advertises only EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.
o If PE3 is running 2-ways pseudowire redundancy, PE2 may leverage
the existence of standby/backup PW with PE3. PE2 may advertise
VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message with proper PW-status message.
6.1.3.2. Asymmetric forwarding
One privilege option is the asymmetric forwarding while peering PEs
run in all-active load-balancing mode. In the example of Figure 3,
traffic from CE1 going to PE1 is forwarded to PE3 using the VPN label
learned from VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message received from PE3.
Traffic from CE1 going to PE2 should get forwarded to PE3 using that
same VPN label. Traffic coming from CE3 to PE3 gets forwarded only
over the primary PW towards PE1; the DF PE.
Supporting asymmetric forwarding with purely LDP as per [RFC8077]
requires extensions to EVPN-VPWS MH procedures. These procedures are
NOT restricted only to LDP and may be applied to VPWS A-D.
Following rules are applied to achieve expected behaviour:
o Peering PEs advertise EVPN Ethernet-AD per ES route with the
single-active bit unset. That is to get the network ready when
remote legacy PE are upgraded to EVPN-VPWS.
o DF PE advertises VPWS AD routes or LDP-LM message and EVPN
Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.
o NDF PE advertises only EVPN Ethernet AD per EVI route per PW.
o If PE3 is running 2-ways pseudowire redundancy, PE2 may leverage
the existence of standby/backup PW with PE3. PE2 may advertise
VPWS AD route or LDP-LM message with proper PW-status message.
o The tunnel encapsulation attribute [tun_encap] is used to
synchronize alias PW label between peering PEs. The tunnel
encapsulation attribute, specifying the alias PW label and tunnel
endpoint (nexthop) of the remote PE (PE3), is transmitted along
with EVPN Ethernet-AD per EVI route. The NDF PEs uses the same
VPN label per Legacy PW as DF PE when transmitting traffic coming
from CE (CE1) towards remote PE(PE3).
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in [RFC8214] are valid for
this document.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Sylvain Masse for his feedback
and contribution to this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.
[RFC8077] Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and
Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)",
STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10.17487/RFC8077, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8077>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
10.2. Informative References
[evpn_fxc]
Sajassi, A. and P. Brissette, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-
fxc", 2019.
[evpn_pa] Brissette, P. and A. Sajassi, "draft-brissette-bess-evpn-
mh-pa", 2019.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[tun_encap]
Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., and S. Sangli, "draft-ietf-
idr-tunnel-encaps", 2019.
[vpls_AA] Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Brissette, P., and L. Jalil,
"draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-vpls-all-active", 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
Patrice Brissette (editor)
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Luc Andre Burdet
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: lburdet@cisco.com
James Uttaro
ATT
USA
Email: uttaro@att.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Montreal, QC
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Iman Ghamari
LinkedIn
USA
Email: ighamari@linkedin.com
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title March 2021
Edward Leyton
Verizon Wireless
USA
Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com
Brissette, et al. Expires September 12, 2021 [Page 15]