EVPN multi-homing port-active load-balancing
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-05

BESS Working Group                                     P. Brissette, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                A. Sajassi
Intended status: Standards Track                         LA. Burdet, Ed.
Expires: 8 September 2022                                      S. Thoria
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                  B. Wen
                                                                 Comcast
                                                               E. Leyton
                                                        Verizon Wireless
                                                              J. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia
                                                            7 March 2022

              EVPN multi-homing port-active load-balancing
                     draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-05

Abstract

   The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) technology enables
   establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant
   group of independent nodes.  The purpose of multi-chassis LAG is to
   provide a solution to achieve higher network availability, while
   providing different modes of sharing/balancing of traffic.  RFC7432
   defines EVPN based MC-LAG with single-active and all-active
   multi-homing load-balancing mode.  The current draft expands on
   existing redundancy mechanisms supported by EVPN and introduces
   support for port-active load-balancing mode.

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 8 September 2022.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Port-active Load-balancing Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-active PE  .   5
     4.1.  Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Modulo-based Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  HRW Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Preference-based DF Election  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.5.  AC-Influenced DF Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Convergence considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Overall Advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   EVPN, as per [RFC7432], provides all-active per flow load-balancing
   for multi-homing.  It also defines single-active with service carving
   mode, where one of the PEs, in redundancy relationship, is active per
   service.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   While these two multi-homing scenarios are most widely utilized in
   data center and service provider access networks, there are scenarios
   where active-standby per interface multi-homing load-balancing is
   useful and required.  The main consideration for this mode of
   load-balancing is the determinism of traffic forwarding through a
   specific interface rather than statistical per flow load-balancing
   across multiple PEs providing multi-homing.  The determinism provided
   by active-standby per interface is also required for certain QOS
   features to work.  While using this mode, customers also expect
   minimized convergence during failures.

   A new type of load-balancing mode, port-active load-balancing, is
   defined.  This draft describes how the new load-balancing mode can be
   supported via EVPN.  The new mode may also be referred to as per
   interface active/standby.

                    +-----+
                    | PE3 |
                    +-----+
                 +-----------+
                 |  MPLS/IP  |
                 |  CORE     |
                 +-----------+
               +-----+   +-----+
               | PE1 |   | PE2 |
               +-----+   +-----+
                  |         |
                  I1       I2
                    \     /
                     \   /
                     +---+
                     |CE1|
                     +---+

                         Figure 1: MC-LAG Topology

   Figure 1 shows a MC-LAG multi-homing topology where PE1 and PE2 are
   part of the same redundancy group providing multi-homing to CE1 via
   interfaces I1 and I2.  Interfaces I1 and I2 are members of a LAG
   running LACP protocol.  The core, shown as IP or MPLS enabled,
   provides wide range of L2 and L3 services.  MC-LAG multi-homing
   functionality is decoupled from those services in the core and it
   focuses on providing multi-homing to the CE.  With per-port active/
   standby load-balancing, only one of the two interface I1 or I2 would
   be in forwarding, the other interface will be in standby.  This also
   implies that all services on the active interface are in active mode
   and all services on the standby interface operate in standby mode.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

1.1.  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.  Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation

   When a CE is multi-homed to a set of PE nodes using the
   [IEEE.802.1AX_2014] Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), the PEs
   must act as if they were a single LACP speaker for the Ethernet links
   to form and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  To achieve
   this, the PEs connected to the same multi-homed CE must synchronize
   LACP configuration and operational data among them.  Interchassis
   Communication Protocol (ICCP) [RFC7275] has been used for that
   purpose.  EVPN LAG simplifies greatly that solution.  Along with the
   simplification come a few assumptions:

   *  a CE device connected to multi-homing PEs may have a single LAG
      with all its active links i.e. links in the LAG operate in all-
      active load-balancing mode.

   *  Same LACP parameters MUST be configured on peering PEs such as
      system id, port priority and port key.

   Any discrepancies from this list are out of the scope of this
   document, as are mis-configuration and mis-wiring detection across
   peering PEs.

3.  Port-active Load-balancing Procedure

   Following steps describe the proposed procedure with EVPN LAG to
   support port-active load-balancing mode:

   a.  The Ethernet-Segment Identifier (ESI) MUST be assigned per access
       interface as described in [RFC7432], which may be auto derived or
       manually assigned.  Access interface MAY be a Layer-2 or Layer-3
       interface.  The usage of ESI over Layer-3 interface is newly
       described in this document.

   b.  Ethernet-Segment (ES) MUST be configured in port-active
       load-balancing mode on peering PEs for specific access interface.

   c.  Peering PEs MAY exchange only Ethernet-Segment (ES) route
       (Route Type-4) when ESI is configured on a Layer-3 interface.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   d.  PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in
       [RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and
       which one(s) keep it in standby mode.  While the DF election
       defined in [RFC8584] is per [ES, Ethernet Tag] granularity, for
       port-active mode of multi-homing, the DF election is done per
       <ES>.  The details of this algorithm are described in Section 4.

   e.  DF router MUST keep corresponding access interface in up and
       forwarding active state for that Ethernet-Segment

   f.  Non-DF routers will by default implement a bidirectional blocking
       scheme for all traffic in line with [RFC7432] Single-Active
       blocking scheme, albeit across all VLANS.

       *  Non-DF routers MAY bring and keep peering access interface
          attached to it in operational down state.

       *  If the interface is running LACP protocol, then the non-DF PE
          MAY also set the LACP state to OOS (Out of Sync) as opposed to
          interface state down.  This allows for better convergence on
          standby to active transition.

   g.  For EVPN-VPWS service, the usage of primary/backup bits of EVPN
       Layer-2 attributes extended community [RFC8214] is highly
       recommended to achieve better convergence.

4.  Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-active PE

   The ES routes, running in port-active load-balancing mode, are
   advertised with the new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability in the DF
   Election Extended Community defined in [RFC8584].  Moreover, the ES
   associated to the port leverages existing procedure of Single-Active,
   and signals Single-Active(RED=01) Multihomed site redundancy mode
   along with Ethernet-AD per-ES route (Section 7.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis]).  Finally the ESI-label based split-
   horizon procedures in [RFC7432] should be used to avoid transient
   echo'ed packets when Layer-2 circuits are involved.

   The various algorithms for DF Election are discussed in Sections 4.2
   to 4.5 for completeness, although the choice of algorithm in this
   solution doesn't affect complexity or performance as in other load-
   balancing modes.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

4.1.  Capability Flag

   [RFC8584] defines a DF Election extended community, and a Bitmap
   field to encode "capabilities" to use with the DF election algorithm
   in the DF algorithm field.  Bitmap (2 octets) is extended by the
   following value:

                            1 1 1 1 1 1
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |D|A|     |P|                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Figure 2: Amended Bitmap field in the DF Election Extended Community

   Bit 0:    D bit or 'Don't Preempt' bit, as explained in
             [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df].

   Bit 1:    AC-DF Capability (AC-Influenced DF election), as explained
             in [RFC8584].

   Bit 5:    (corresponds to Bit 29 of the DF Election Extended
             Community and it is defined by this document): 'Port Mode
             Load-Balancing' Capability (P bit hereafter), determines
             that the DF-Algorithm should be modified to consider the
             port ES only and not the Ethernet Tags.

4.2.  Modulo-based Algorithm

   The default DF Election algorithm, or modulus-based algorithm as in
   [RFC7432] and updated by [RFC8584], is used here, at the granularity
   of ES only.  Given that ES-Import Route Target extended community may
   be auto-derived and directly inherits its auto-derived value from ESI
   bytes 1-6, many operators differentiate ESI primarily within these
   bytes.  As a result, bytes 3-6 are used to determine the designated
   forwarder using Modulo-based DF assignment, achieving good entropy
   during Modulo calculation across ESIs:
   Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, the PE with ordinal i is
   the DF for an <EE> when (Es mod N) = i, where Es represents bytes 3-6
   of that ESI.

4.3.  HRW Algorithm

   Highest Random Weight (HRW) algorithm defined in [RFC8584] MAY also
   be used and signaled, and modified to operate at the granularity of
   <ES> rather than per <ES, VLAN>.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] describes computing a 32 bit CRC over the
   concatenation of Ethernet Tag and ESI.  For port-active
   load-balancing mode, the Ethernet Tag is simply removed from the CRC
   computation.

   DF(Es) denotes the DF and BDF(Es) denote the BDF for the ESI es; Si
   is the IP address of PE i; and Weight is a function of Si, and Es.

   1.  DF(Es) = Si| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sj), for all j.  In the
       case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the
       least.  Note that 0 <= i,j < number of PEs in the redundancy
       group.

   2.  BDF(Es) = Sk| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sk), and Weight(Es,
       Sk) >= Weight(Es, Sj).  In the case of a tie, choose the PE whose
       IP address is numerically the least.

   Where:

   *  DF(Es) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which
      Weight(Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1.

   *  BDF(Es) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the
      computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF.  j
      is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values.

4.4.  Preference-based DF Election

   When the new capability 'Port-Mode' is signaled, the algorithm is
   modified to consider the port only and not any associated Ethernet
   Tags.  Furthermore, the "port-based" capability MUST be compatible
   with the "Don't Preempt" bit.  When an interface recovers, a peering
   PE signaling D-bit will enable non-revertive behaviour at the port
   level.

4.5.  AC-Influenced DF Election

   The AC-DF bit MUST be set to 0 when advertising Port Mode Load-
   Balancing capability (P=1).  When an AC (sub-interface) goes down, it
   does not influence the DF election.  The peer's Ethernet A-D per EVI
   is ignored in all Port Mode DF Election algorthms.

   Upon receiving AC-DF bit set (A=1) from a remote PE, it MUST be
   ignored when performing Port-Mode DF Election.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

5.  Convergence considerations

   To improve the convergence, upon failure and recovery, when
   port-active load-balancing mode is used, some advanced
   synchronization between peering PEs may be required.  Port-active is
   challenging in a sense that the "standby" port is in down state.  It
   takes some time to bring a "standby" port in up-state and settle the
   network.  For IRB and L3 services, ARP / ND cache may be
   synchronized.  Moreover, associated VRF tables may also be
   synchronized.  For L2 services, MAC table synchronization may be
   considered.

   Finally, for members of a LAG running LACP the ability to set the
   "standby" port in "out-of-sync" state a.k.a "warm-standby" can be
   leveraged.

5.1.  Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment

   The EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags extended community SHOULD
   be advertised in Ethernet A-D per ES route for fast convergence.

   Only the P and B bits are relevant to this document, and only in the
   context of Ethernet A-D per ES routes:

   *  When advertised, the EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags
      extended community SHALL have only P or B bits set and all other
      bits and fields MUST be zero.

   *  A remote PE receiving the optional EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control
      Flags extended community in Ethernet A-D per ES routes SHALL
      consider only P and B bits.

   For EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags extended community sent and
   received in Ethernet A-D per EVI routes used in [RFC8214],
   [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis] and [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc]:

   *  P and B bits received are overridden by "parent" bits on Ethernet
      A-D per ES above.

   *  Other fields and bits of the extended community are used according
      to the procedures of those documents.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

5.2.  Backward Compatibility

   Implementations that comply with [RFC7432] or [RFC8214] only (i.e.,
   implementations that predate this document) will not advertise the
   EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control Flags extended community in Ethernet
   A-D per ES routes.  That means that all remote PEs in the ES will not
   receive P and B bit per ES and will continue to receive and honour
   the P and B bits received in Ethernet A-D per EVI route(s).
   Similarly, an implementation that complies with [RFC7432] or
   [RFC8214] only and that receives an EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Control
   Flags extended community will ignore it and will continue to use the
   default path resolution algorithm.

6.  Applicability

   A common deployment is to provide L2 or L3 service on the PEs
   providing multi-homing.  The services could be any L2 EVPN such as
   EVPN VPWS, EVPN [RFC7432], etc.  L3 service could be in VPN context
   [RFC4364] or in global routing context.  When a PE provides first hop
   routing, EVPN IRB could also be deployed on the PEs.  The mechanism
   defined in this document is used between the PEs providing L2 and/or
   L3 services, when per interface single-active load-balancing is
   desired.

   A possible alternate solution is the one described in this draft is
   MC-LAG with ICCP [RFC7275] active-standby redundancy.  However, ICCP
   requires LDP to be enabled as a transport of ICCP messages.  There
   are many scenarios where LDP is not required e.g. deployments with
   VXLAN or SRv6.  The solution defined in this draft with EVPN does not
   mandate the need to use LDP or ICCP and is independent of the
   underlay encapsulation.

7.  Overall Advantages

   The use of port-active multi-homing brings the following benefits to
   EVPN networks:

   a.  Open standards based per interface single-active load-balancing
       mechanism that eliminates the need to run ICCP and LDP (e.g. they
       may be running VXLAN or SRv6 in the network).

   b.  Agnostic of underlay technology (MPLS, VXLAN, SRv6) and
       associated services (L2, L3, Bridging, E-LINE, etc).

   c.  Provides a way to enable deterministic QOS over MC-LAG attachment
       circuits.

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   d.  Fully compliant with [RFC7432], does not require any new protocol
       enhancement to existing EVPN RFCs.

   e.  Can leverage various DF election algorithms e.g. modulo, HRW,
       etc.

   f.  Replaces legacy MC-LAG ICCP-based solution, and offers following
       additional benefits:

       *  Efficiently supports 1+N redundancy mode (with EVPN using BGP
          RR) where as ICCP requires full mesh of LDP sessions among PEs
          in redundancy group.

       *  Fast convergence with mass-withdraw is possible with EVPN, no
          equivalent in ICCP.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document solicits the allocation of the following values:

   *  Bit 5 in the [RFC8584] DF Election Capabilities registry, with
      name "P" for Port Mode Load-Balancing.

9.  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584]
   are valid for this document.

   By introducing a new capability, a new requirement for unanimity (or
   lack thereof) between PEs is added.  Without consensus on the new DF
   election procedures and Port Mode, the DF election algorithm falls
   back to the default DF election as provided in [RFC8584], [RFC7432]
   and [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis].  This behavior could be exploited by
   an attacker that manages to modify the configuration of one PE in the
   ES so that the DF election algorithm and capabilities in all the PEs
   in the ES fall back to the default DF election.  If that is the case,
   the PEs will be exposed to the same unfair load balancing, service
   disruption, and possibly black-holing or duplicate traffic mentioned
   in those documents and their security sections.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Anoop Ghanwani for his comments and suggestions and
   Stephane Litkowski for his careful review.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df]
              Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Przygienda, T., Lin, W.,
              Drake, J., Sajassi, A., and satyamoh@cisco.com,
              "Preference-based EVPN DF Election", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-08, 23
              September 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-08.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis]
              Sajassi, A., Burdet, L. A., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan,
              "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-04, 7 March 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-
              rfc7432bis-04.txt>.

   [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>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8584]  Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake,
              J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet
              VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility",
              RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.

11.2.  Informative References

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc]
              Sajassi, A., Brissette, P., Uttaro, J., Drake, J.,
              Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-
              Connect Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-05, 8 February 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-
              vpws-fxc-05.txt>.

   [IEEE.802.1AX_2014]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802.1AX-2014,
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197, 24 December 2014,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
              opac?punumber=6997981>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC7275]  Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
              Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
              Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
              (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>.

Authors' Addresses

   Patrice Brissette (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Ottawa ON
   Canada
   Email: pbrisset@cisco.com

   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems
   United States of America
   Email: sajassi@cisco.com

   Luc Andre Burdet (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Canada
   Email: lburdet@cisco.com

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             EVPN MH Port-Active                March 2022

   Samir Thoria
   Cisco Systems
   United States of America
   Email: sthoria@cisco.com

   Bin Wen
   Comcast
   United States of America
   Email: Bin_Wen@comcast.com

   Edward Leyton
   Verizon Wireless
   United States of America
   Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com

   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia
   United States of America
   Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com

Brissette, et al.       Expires 8 September 2022               [Page 13]