Skip to main content

Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures

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 "Active".
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Wen Lin , Jorge Rabadan , Keyur Patel
Last updated 2016-10-18
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
BESS                                                            Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                                    W. Lin
Updates: 7432 (if approved)                             Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                              J. Rabadan
Expires: April 21, 2017                                            Nokia
                                                                K. Patel
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        October 18, 2016

                     Updates on EVPN BUM Procedures


   This document specifies procedure updates for broadcast, unknown
   unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic in Ethernet VPNs (EVPN),
   including selective multicast, and provider tunnel segmentation.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.

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

   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 April 21, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Reasons for Tunnel Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Additional Route Types of EVPN NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  S-PMSI A-D route  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Leaf-AD route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Selective Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Inter-AS Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Changes to Section 7.2.2 of RFC 7117  . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  I-PMSI Leaf Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Inter-Region Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Area vs. Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Per-region Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  Use of S-NH-EC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.4.  Ingress PE's I-PMSI Leaf Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Multi-homing Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Terminology

   To be added

2.  Introduction

   RFC 7432 specifies procedures to handle broadcast, unknown unicast,
   and multicast (BUM) traffic in Section 11, 12 and 16, using Inclusive
   Multicast Ethernet Tag Route.  A lot of details are referred to RFC

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   7117 (VPLS Multicast).  In particular, selective multicast is briefly
   mentioned for Ingress Replication but referred to RFC 7117.

   RFC 7117 specifies procedures for using both inclusive tunnels and
   selective tunnels, similar to MVPN procedures specified in RFC 6513
   and RFC 6514.  A new SAFI "MCAST-VPLS" is introduced, with two types
   of NLRIs that match MVPN's S-PMSI A-D routes and Leaf A-D routes.
   The same procedures can be applied to EVPN selective multicast for
   both Ingress Replication and other tunnel types, but new route types
   need to be defined under the same EVPN SAFI.

   MVPN uses terms I-PMSI and S-PMSI A-D Routes.  For consistency and
   convenience, this document will use the same I/S-PMSI terms for VPLS
   and EVPN.  In particular, EVPN's Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
   Route and VPLS's VPLS A-D route carrying PTA (PMSI Tunnel Attribute)
   for BUM traffic purpose will all be referred to as I-PMSI A-D routes.
   Depending on the context, they may be used interchangeably.

   MVPN provider tunnels and EVPN/VPLS BUM provider tunnels, which are
   referred to as MVPN/EVPN/VPLS provider tunnels in this document for
   simplicity, can be segmented for technical or administrative reasons,
   which are summarized in Section 2.1 of this document.  RFC 6513/6514
   cover MVPN inter-as segmentation, RFC 7117 covers VPLS multicast
   inter-as segmentation, and RFC 7524 (Seamless MPLS Multicast) covers
   inter-area segmentation for both MVPN and VPLS.

   There is a difference between MVPN and VPLS multicast inter-as
   segmentation.  For simplicity, EVPN uses the same procedures as in
   MVPN.  All ASBRs can re-advertise their choice of the best route.
   Each can become the root of its intra-AS segment and inject traffic
   it receives from its upstream, while each downstream PE/ASBR will
   only pick one of the upstream ASBRs as its upstream.  This is also
   the behavior even for VPLS in case of inter-area segmentation.

   For inter-area segmentation, RFC 7524 requires the use of Inter-area
   P2MP Segmented Next-Hop Extended Community (S-NH-EC), and the setting
   of "Leaf Information Required" (LIR) flag in PTA in certain
   situations.  Either of these could be optional in case of EVPN.
   Removing these requirements would make the segmentation procedures
   transparent to ingress and egress PEs.

   RFC 7524 assumes that segmentation happens at area borders.  However,
   it could be at "regional" borders, where a region could be a sub-
   area, or even an entire AS plus its external links (Section 6).  That
   would allow for more flexible deployment scenarios (e.g. for single-
   area provider networks).

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   This document specifies/clarifies/redefines certain/additional EVPN
   BUM procedures, with a salient goal that they're better aligned among
   MVPN, EVPN and VPLS.  For brevity, only changes/additions to relevant
   RFC 7117 and RFC 7524 procedures are specified, instead of repeating
   the entire procedures.  Note that these are to be applied to EVPN
   only, even though sometimes they may sound to be updates to RFC

2.1.  Reasons for Tunnel Segmentation

   Tunnel segmentation may be required and/or desired because of
   administrative and/or technical reasons.

   For example, an MVPN/VPLS/EVPN network may span multiple providers
   and Inter-AS Option-B has to be used, in which the end-to-end
   provider tunnels have to be segmented at and stitched by the ASBRs.
   Different providers may use different tunnel technologies (e.g.,
   provider A uses Ingress Replication, provider B uses RSVP-TE P2MP
   while provider C uses mLDP).  Even if they use the same tunnel
   technology like RSVP-TE P2MP, it may be impractical to set up the
   tunnels across provider boundaries.

   The same situations may apply between the ASes and/or areas of a
   single provider.  For example, the backbone area may use RSVP-TE P2MP
   tunnels while non-backbone areas may use mLDP tunnels.

   Segmentation can also be used to divide an AS/area to smaller
   regions, so that control plane state and/or forwarding plane state/
   burden can be limited to that of individual regions.  For example,
   instead of Ingress Replicating to 100 PEs in the entire AS, with
   inter-area segmentation [RFC 7524] a PE only needs to replicate to
   local PEs and ABRs.  The ABRs will further replicate to their
   downstream PEs and ABRs.  This not only reduces the forwarding plane
   burden, but also reduces the leaf tracking burden in the control

   Smaller regions also have the benefit that, in case of tunnel
   aggregation, it is easier to find congruence among the segments of
   different constituent (service) tunnels and the resulting aggregation
   (base) tunnel in a region.  This leads to better bandwidth
   efficiency, because the more congruent they are, the fewer leaves of
   the base tunnel need to discard traffic when a service tunnel's
   segment does not need to receive the traffic (yet it is receiving the
   traffic due to aggregation).

   Another advantage of the smaller region is smaller BIER sub-domains.
   In this new multicast architecture BIER, packets carry a BitString,
   in which the bits correspond to edge routers that needs to receive

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   traffic.  Smaller sub-domains means smaller BitStrings can be used
   without having to send multiple copies of the same packet.

3.  Additional Route Types of EVPN NLRI

   RFC 7432 defines the format of EVPN NLRI as the following:

                    |    Route Type (1 octet)           |
                    |     Length (1 octet)              |
                    | Route Type specific (variable)    |

   So far five types have been defined:

         + 1 - Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) route
         + 2 - MAC/IP Advertisement route
         + 3 - Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route
         + 4 - Ethernet Segment route
         + 5 - IP Prefix Route

   This document defines three additional route types:

         + 6 - Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route
         + 7 - S-PMSI A-D route
         + 8 - Leaf A-D route

   The "Route Type specific" field of the type 6 and type 7 EVPN NLRIs
   starts with a type 1 RD, whose Administrative sub-field MUST match
   that of the RD in all the EVPN routes from the same advertising
   router for a given EVI, except the Leaf A-D route (Section 3.3).

3.1.  Per-Region I-PMSI A-D route

   The Per-region I-PMSI A-D route has the following format.  Its usage
   is discussed in Section 6.2.

                   |      RD   (8 octets)              |
                   |  Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets)       |
                   | Extended Community (8 octets)     |

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   After Ethernet Tag ID, an Extended Community (EC) is used to identify
   the region.  Various types and sub-types of ECs provide maximum
   flexibility.  Note that this is not an EC Attribute, but an 8-octet
   field embedded in the NLRI itself, following EC encoding scheme.

3.2.  S-PMSI A-D route

   The S-PMSI A-D route has the following format:

                   |      RD   (8 octets)              |
                   |  Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets)       |
                   | Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
                   |  Multicast Source (Variable)      |
                   |  Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
                   |  Multicast Group   (Variable)     |
                   |   Originating Router's IP Addr    |

   Other than the addition of Ethernet Tag ID, it is identical to the
   S-PMSI A-D route as defined in RFC 7117.  The procedures in RFC 7117
   also apply (including wildcard functionality), except that the
   granularity level is per Ethernet Tag.

3.3.  Leaf-AD route

   The Route Type specific field of a Leaf A-D route consists of the

                   |      Route Key (variable)         |
                   |   Originating Router's IP Addr    |

   A Leaf A-D route is originated in response to a PMSI route, which
   could be an Inclusive Multicast Tag route, a per-region I-PMSI A-D
   route, an S-PMSI A-D route, or some other types of routes that may be
   defined in the future that triggers Leaf A-D routes.  The Route Key
   is the "Route Type Specific" field of the route for which this Leaf
   A-D route is generated.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   The general procedures of Leaf A-D route are first specified in RFC
   6514 for MVPN.  The principles apply to VPLS and EVPN as well.  RFC
   7117 has details for VPLS Multicast, and this document points out
   some specifics for EVPN, e.g. in Section 5.

4.  Selective Multicast

   RFC 7117 specifies Selective Multicast for VPLS.  Other than that
   different route types and formats are specified with EVPN SAFI for
   S-PMSI A-D and Leaf A-D routes (Section 3), all procedures in RFC
   7117 with respect to Selective Multicast apply to EVPN as well,
   including wildcard procedures.

5.  Inter-AS Segmentation

5.1.  Changes to Section 7.2.2 of RFC 7117

   The first paragraph of Section of RFC 7117 says:

     "... The best route procedures ensure that if multiple
     ASBRs, in an AS, receive the same Inter-AS A-D route from their EBGP
     neighbors, only one of these ASBRs propagates this route in Internal
     BGP (IBGP).  This ASBR becomes the root of the intra-AS segment of
     the inter-AS tree and ensures that this is the only ASBR that accepts
     traffic into this AS from the inter-AS tree."

   The above VPLS behavior requires complicated VPLS specific procedures
   for the ASBRs to reach agreement.  For EVPN, a different approach is
   used and the above quoted text is not applicable to EVPN.

   The Leaf A-D based procedure is used for each ASBR who re-advertises
   into the AS to discover the leaves on the segment rooted at itself.
   This is the same as the procedures for S-PMSI in RFC 7117 itself.

   The following text at the end of the second bullet:

         "................................................... If, in order
         to instantiate the segment, the ASBR needs to know the leaves of
         the tree, then the ASBR obtains this information from the A-D
         routes received from other PEs/ASBRs in the ASBR's own AS."

   is changed to the following:

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

         "................................................... If, in order
         to instantiate the segment, the ASBR needs to know the leaves of
         the tree, then the ASBR MUST set the LIR flag to 1 in the PTA to
         trigger Leaf A-D routes from egress PEs and downstream ASBRs.
         It MUST be (auto-)configured with an import RT, which controls
         acceptance of leaf A-D routes by the ASBR."

   Accordingly, the following paragraph in Section

     "If the received Inter-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute
     with the Tunnel Identifier set to RSVP-TE P2MP LSP, then the ASBR
     that originated the route MUST establish an RSVP-TE P2MP LSP with the
     local PE/ASBR as a leaf.  This LSP MAY have been established before
     the local PE/ASBR receives the route, or it MAY be established after
     the local PE receives the route."

   is changed to the following:

     "If the received Inter-AS A-D route has the LIR flag set in its PTA,
     then a receiving PE must originate a corresponding Leaf A-D route,
     and a receiving  ASBR must originate a corresponding Leaf A-D route
     if and only if it received and imported one or more corresponding Leaf
     A-D routes from its downstream IBGP or EBGP peers, or it has non-null
     downstream forwarding state for the PIM/mLDP tunnel that instantiates
     its downstream intra-AS segment. The ASBR that (re-)advertised the
     Inter-AS A-D route then establishes a tunnel to the leaves discovered
     by the Leaf A-D routes."

5.2.  I-PMSI Leaf Tracking

   An ingress PE does not set the LIR flag in its I-PMSI's PTA, even
   with Ingress Replication or RSVP-TE P2MP tunnels.  It does not rely
   on the Leaf A-D routes to discover leaves in its AS, and Section 11.2
   of RFC 7432 explicitly states that the LIR flag must be set to zero.

   An implementation of RFC 7432 might have used the Originating
   Router's IP Address field of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
   routes to determine the leaves, or might have used the Next Hop field
   instead.  Within the same AS, both will lead to the same result.

   With segmentation, an ingress PE MUST determine the leaves in its AS
   from the BGP next hops in all its received I-PMSI A-D routes, so it
   does not have to set the LIR bit set to request Leaf A-D routes.  PEs
   within the same AS will all have different next hops in their I-PMSI
   A-D routes (hence will all be considered as leaves), and PEs from
   other ASes will have the next hop in their I-PMSI A-D routes set to
   addresses of ASBRs in this local AS, hence only those ASBRs will be
   considered as leaves (as proxies for those PEs in other ASes).  Note

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   that in case of Ingress Replication, when an ASBR re-advertises IBGP
   I-PMSI A-D routes, it MUST advertise the same label for all those for
   the same Ethernet Tag ID and the same EVI.  When an ingress PE builds
   its flooding list, multiple routes may have the same (nexthop, label)
   tuple and they will only be added as a single branch in the flooding

5.3.  Backward Compatibility

   The above procedures assume that all PEs are upgraded to support the
   segmentation procedures:

   o  An ingress PE uses the Next Hop instead of Originating Router's IP
      Address to determine leaves for the I-PMSI tunnel.

   o  An egress PE sends Leaf A-D routes in response to I-PMSI routes,
      if the PTA has the LIR flag set (by the re-advertising ASBRs).

   o  In case of Ingress Replication, when an ingress PE builds its
      flooding list, multiple I-PMSI routes may have the same (nexthop,
      label) tuple and only a single branch for those will be added in
      the flooding list.

   If a deployment has legacy PEs that does not support the above, then
   a legacy ingress PE would include all PEs (including those in remote
   ASes) as leaves of the inclusive tunnel and try to send traffic to
   them directly (no segmentation), which is either undesired or not
   possible; a legacy egress PE would not send Leaf A-D routes so the
   ASBRs would not know to send external traffic to them.

   To address this backward compatibility problem, the following
   procedure can be used (see Section 6.2 for per-PE/AS/region I-PMSI
   A-D routes):

   o  An upgraded PE indicates in its per-PE I-PMSI A-D route that it
      supports the new procedures.  Details will be provided in a future

   o  All per-PE I-PMSI A-D routes are restricted to the local AS and
      not propagated to external peers.

   o  The ASBRs in an AS originate per-region I-PMSI A-D routes and
      advertise to their external peers to advertise tunnels used to
      carry traffic from the local AS to other ASes.  Depending on the
      types of tunnels being used, the LIR flag in the PTA may be set,
      in which case the downstream ASBRs and upgraded PEs will send Leaf
      A-D routes to pull traffic from their upstream ASBRs.  In a
      particular downstream AS, one of the ASBRs is elected, based on

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

      the per-region I-PMSI A-D routes for a particular source AS, to
      send traffic from that source AS to legacy PEs in the downstream
      AS.  The traffic arrives at the elected ASBR on the tunnel
      announced in the best per-region I-PMSI A-D route for the source
      AS, that the ASBR has selected of all those that it received over
      EBGP or IBGP sessions.  Details of the election procedure will be
      provided in a future revision.

   o  In an ingress AS, if and only if an ASBR has active downstream
      receivers (PEs and ASBRs), which are learned either explicitly via
      Leaf AD routes or implicitly via PIM join or mLDP label mapping,
      the ASBR originates a per-PE I-PMSI A-D route (i.e., regular
      Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route) into the local AS, and
      stitches incoming per-PE I-PMSI tunnels into its per-region I-PMSI
      tunnel.  With this, it gets traffic from local PEs and send to
      other ASes via the tunnel announced in its per-region I-PMSI A-D

   Note that, even if there is no backward compatibility issue, the
   above procedures have the benefit of keeping all per-PE I-PMSI A-D
   routes in their local ASes, greatly reducing the flooding of the
   routes and their corresponding Leaf A-D routes (when needed), and the
   number of inter-as tunnels.

6.  Inter-Region Segmentation

6.1.  Area vs. Region

   RFC 7524 is for MVPN/VPLS inter-area segmentation and does not
   explicitly cover EVPN.  However, if "area" is replaced by "region"
   and "ABR" is replaced by "RBR" (Regional Border Router) then
   everything still works, and can be applied to EVPN as well.

   A region can be a sub-area, or can be an entire AS including its
   external links.  Instead of automatic region definition based on IGP
   areas, a region would be defined as a BGP peer group.  In fact, even
   with IGP area based region definition, a BGP peer group listing the
   PEs and ABRs in an area is still needed.

   Consider the following example diagram:

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

             ---------           ------             ---------
            /         \         /      \           /         \
           /           \       /        \         /           \
          | PE1 o    ASBR1 -- ASBR2    ASBR3 -- ASBR4    o PE2 |
           \           /       \        /         \           /
            \         /         \      /           \         /
             ---------           ------             ---------
             AS 100              AS 200              AS 300
             segment1  segment2 segment3  segment4  segment5

   The inter-as segmentation procedures specified so far (RFC 6513/6514,
   7117, and Section 5 of this document) requires all ASBRs to be
   involved, and Ingress Replication is used between two ASBRs in
   different ASes.

   In the above diagram, it's possible that ASBR1/4 does not support
   segmentation, and the provider tunnels in AS 100/300 can actually
   extend across the external link.  In the case, the inter-region
   segmentation procedures can be used instead - a region is the entire
   (AS100 + ASBR1-ASBR2 link) or (AS300 + ASBR3-ASBR4 link).  ASBR2/3
   would be the RBRs, and ASBR1/4 will just be a transit core router
   with respect to provider tunnels.

   As illustrated in the diagram below, ASBR2/3 will establish a
   multihop EBGP session with either a RR or directly with PEs in the
   neighboring AS.  I/S-PMSI A-D routes from ingress PEs will not be
   processed by ASBR1/4.  When ASBR2 re-advertises the routes into AS
   200, it changes the next hop to its own address and changes PTA to
   specify the tunnel type/identification in its own AS.  When ASBR3 re-
   advertises I/S-PMSI A-D routes into the neighboring AS 300, it
   changes the next hop to its own address and changes PTA to specify
   the tunnel type/identification in the neighboring region 3.  Now the
   segment is rooted at ASBR3 and extends across the external link to

             ---------           ------             ---------
            /   RR....\.mh-ebpg /      \    mh-ebgp/....RR   \
           /    :      \    `. /        \ .'      /      :    \
          | PE1 o    ASBR1 -- ASBR2    ASBR3 -- ASBR4    o PE2 |
           \           /       \        /         \           /
            \         /         \      /           \         /
             ---------           ------             ---------
             AS 100              AS 200              AS 300
             segment 1          segment 2         segment 3

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

6.2.  Per-region Aggregation

   Notice that every I/S-PMSI route from each PE will be propagated
   throughout all the ASes or regions.  They may also trigger
   corresponding Leaf A-D routes depending on the types of tunnels used
   in each region.  This may become too many - routes and corresponding
   tunnels.  To address this concern, the I-PMSI routes from all PEs in
   a AS/region can be aggregated into a single I-PMSI route originated
   from the RBRs, and traffic from all those individual I-PMSI tunnels
   will be switched into the single I-PMSI tunnel.  This is like the
   MVPN Inter-AS I-PMSI route originated by ASBRs.

   The MVPN Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route can be better called as per-AS
   I-PMSI A-D route, to be compared against the (per-PE) Intra-AS I-PMSI
   A-D routes originated by each PE.  In this document we will call it
   as per-region I-PMSI A-D route, in case we want to apply the
   aggregation at regional level.  The per-PE I-PMSI routes will not be
   propagated to other regions.  If multiple RBRs are connected to a
   region, then each will advertise such a route, with the same route
   key (Section 3.1).  Similar to the per-PE I-PMSI A-D routes, RBRs/PEs
   in a downstream region will each select a best one from all those re-
   advertised by the upstream RBRs, hence will only receive traffic
   injected by one of them.

   MVPN does not aggregate S-PMSI routes from all PEs in an AS like it
   does for I-PMSIs routes, because the number of PEs that will
   advertise S-PMSI routes for the same (s,g) or (*,g) is small.  This
   is also the case for EVPN, i.e., there is no per-region S-PMSI

   Notice that per-region I-PMSI routes can also be used to address
   backwards compatibility issue, as discussed in Section 5.3.

   The per-region I-PMSI route uses an embedded EC in NLRI to identify a
   region.  As long as it uniquely identifies the region and the RBRs
   for the same region uses the same EC it is permitted.  In the case
   where an AS number or area ID is needed, the following can be used:

   o  For a two-octet AS number, a Transitive Two-Octet AS-Specific EC
      of sub-type 0x09 (Source AS), with the Global Administrator sub-
      field set to the AS number and the Local Administrator sub-field
      set to 0.

   o  For a four-octet AS number, a Transitive Four-Octet AS-Specific EC
      of sub-type 0x09 (Source AS), with the Global Administrator sub-
      field set to the AS number and the Local Administrator sub-field
      set to 0.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   o  For an area ID, a Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific EC of any sub-

   Uses of other particular ECs may be specified in other documents.

6.3.  Use of S-NH-EC

   RFC 7524 specifies the use of S-NH-EC because it does not allow ABRs
   to change the BGP next hop when they re-advertise I/S-PMSI AD routes
   to downstream areas.  That is only to be consistent with the MVPN
   Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes, whose next hop must not be changed when
   they're re-advertised by the segmenting ABRs for reasons specific to
   MVPN.  For EVPN, it is perfectly fine to change the next hop when
   RBRs re-advertise the I/S-PMSI A-D routes, instead of relying on S-
   NH-EC.  As a result, this document specifies that RBRs change the BGP
   next hop when they re-advertise I/S-PMSI A-D routes and do not use S-
   NH-EC. if a downstream PE/RBR needs to originate Leaf A-D routes, it
   simply uses the BGP next hop in the corresponding I/S-PMSI A-D routes
   to construct Route Targets.

   The advantage of this is that neither ingress nor egress PEs need to
   understand/use S-NH-EC, and consistent procedure (based on BGP next
   hop) is used for both inter-as and inter-region segmentation.

6.4.  Ingress PE's I-PMSI Leaf Tracking

   RFC 7524 specifies that when an ingress PE/ASBR (re-)advertises an
   VPLS I-PMSI A-D route, it sets the LIR flag to 1 in the route's PTA.
   Similar to the inter-as case, this is actually not really needed for
   EVPN.  To be consistent with the inter-as case, the ingress PE does
   not set the LIR flag in its originated I-PMSI A-D routes, and
   determines the leaves based on the BGP next hops in its received
   I-PMSI A-D routes, as specified in Section 5.2.

   The same backward compatibility issue exists, and the same solution
   as in the inter-as case applies, as specified in Section 5.3.

7.  Multi-homing Support

   If multi-homing does not span across different ASes or regions,
   existing procedures work with segmentation.  If an ES is multi-homed
   to PEs in different ASes or regions, additional procedures are needed
   to work with segmentation.  The procedures are well understood but
   omitted here until the requirement becomes clear.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not seem to introduce new security risks, though
   this may be revised after further review and scrutiny.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Eric Rosen, John Drake, and Ron Bonica for their
   comments and suggestions.

10.  Contributors

   The following also contributed to this document through their earlier
   work in EVPN selective multicast.

   Junlin Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              Rosen, E., Subramanian, K., and J. Zhang, "Ingress
              Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN", draft-ietf-bess-
              ir-00 (work in progress), January 2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   [RFC7117]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
              C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7524]  Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., Morin, T.,
              Grosclaude, I., Leymann, N., and S. Saad, "Inter-Area
              Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths
              (LSPs)", RFC 7524, DOI 10.17487/RFC7524, May 2015,

11.2.  Informative References

              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Henderickx, W., Palislamovic,
              S., Balus, F., Sajassi, A., and D. Cai, "Interconnect
              Solution for EVPN Overlay networks", draft-ietf-bess-dci-
              evpn-overlay-00 (work in progress), January 2015.

              Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J.,
              and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization Overlay
              Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-01
              (work in progress), February 2015.

              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Henderickx, W., Sajassi, A.,
              and A. Isaac, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for
              EVPN", draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-00 (work in
              progress), October 2014.

              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
              S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication", draft-wijnands-bier-architecture-05 (work in
              progress), March 2015.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <>.

Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          evpn-bum-procedure-update           October 2016

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,

Authors' Addresses

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks


   Wen Lin
   Juniper Networks


   Jorge Rabadan


   Keyur Patel
   Cisco Systems


Zhang, et al.            Expires April 21, 2017                [Page 16]