A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-02
BESS Working Group S. Mohanty
Internet-Draft K. Patel
Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi
Expires: October 06, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Drake
Juniper Networks, Inc.
A. Przygienda
Juniper
April 09, 2017
A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-02
Abstract
This document describes an improved EVPN Designated Forwarder
Election (DF) algorithm which can be used to enhance operational
experience in terms of convergence speed and robustness over a WAN
deploying EVPN
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 http://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 October 06, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://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
Mohanty, et al. Expires October 06, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft An Improved EVPN DF Election Algorithm October 2016
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. Finite State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The modulus based DF Election Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problems with the modulus based DF Election Algorithm . . . . 5
4. Highest Random Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. HRW and Consistent Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Finite State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Auto-Derivation of ES-Import Route Target . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Ethernet MPLS VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] is an emerging technology that is
gaining prominence in Internet Service Provider IP/MPLS networks. In
EVPN, mac addresses are disseminated as routes across the
geographical area via the Border Gateway Protocol, BGP [RFC4271]
using the familiar L3VPN model [RFC4364]. An EVPN instance that
spans across PEs is defined as an EVI. Constrained Route
Distribution [RFC4684] can be used in conjunction to selectively
advertise the routes to where they are needed. One of the major
advantages of EVPN over VPLS [RFC4761],[RFC6624] is that it provides
a solution for minimizing flooding of unknown traffic and also
provides all Active mode of operation so that the traffic can truly
be multi-homed. In technologies such as EVPN or VPLS, managing
Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and multicast traffic (BUM) is a key
requirement. In the case where the customer edge (CE) router is
multi-homed to one or more Provider Edge (PE) Routers, it is
necessary that one and only one of the PE routers should forward BUM
Show full document text