Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9574.
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jorge Rabadan , Senthil Sathappan , Wim Henderickx , Ali Sajassi , Aldrin Isaac | ||
| Last updated | 2016-09-01 (Latest revision 2016-02-29) | ||
| Replaces | draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-optimized-ir | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
INTDIR Telechat review
(of
-09)
by Pascal Thubert
Ready w/issues
GENART IETF Last Call review
(of
-09)
by Gyan Mishra
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9574 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-00
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet Draft S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track W. Henderickx
Nokia
R. Shekhar
N. Sheth A. Sajassi
W. Lin Cisco
M. Katiyar
Juniper A. Isaac
Juniper
M. Tufail
Citibank
Expires: September 1, 2016 February 29, 2016
Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-00
Abstract
Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control
plane may use ingress replication (IR) or PIM-based trees to convey
the overlay multicast traffic. PIM provides an efficient solution to
avoid sending multiple copies of the same packet over the same
physical link, however it may not always be deployed in the NVO core
network. IR avoids the dependency on PIM in the NVO network core.
While IR provides a simple multicast transport, some NVO networks
with demanding multicast applications require a more efficient
solution without PIM in the core. This document describes a solution
to optimize the efficiency of IR in NVO networks.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. EVPN BGP Attributes for optimized-IR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Non-selective Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description . 7
4.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR procedures . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Non-selective AR-LEAF procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. RNVE procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Forwarding behavior in non-selective AR EVIs . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1. Broadcast and Multicast forwarding behavior . . . . . . 11
4.4.1.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding . . . . . 11
4.4.1.2. Non-selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1.3. RNVE BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. Unknown unicast forwarding behavior . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF Unknown unicast
forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.2.2. RNVE Unknown unicast forwarding . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Selective Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description . . . 13
5.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Selective AR-LEAF procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
5.3. Forwarding behavior in selective AR EVIs . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.2. Selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. A PFL example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. AR Procedures for single-IP AR-REPLICATORS . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. AR Procedures and EVPN Multi-homing Split-Horizon . . . . . . . 20
9. Out-of-band distribution of Broadcast/Multicast traffic . . . . 20
10. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
15.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Problem Statement
EVPN may be used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization
Overlay (NVO) network. Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) devices and
PEs that are part of the same EVI use Ingress Replication (IR) or
PIM-based trees to transport the tenant's multicast traffic. In NVO
networks where PIM-based trees cannot be used, IR is the only
alternative. Examples of these situations are NVO networks where the
core nodes don't support PIM or the network operator does not want to
run PIM in the core.
In some use-cases, the amount of replication for BUM (Broadcast,
Unknown unicast and Multicast traffic) is kept under control on the
NVEs due to the following fairly common assumptions:
a) Broadcast is greatly reduced due to the proxy-ARP and proxy-ND
capabilities supported by EVPN on the NVEs. Some NVEs can even
provide DHCP-server functions for the attached Tenant Systems (TS)
reducing the broadcast even further.
b) Unknown unicast traffic is greatly reduced in virtualized NVO
networks where all the MAC and IP addresses are learnt in the
control plane.
c) Multicast applications are not used.
If the above assumptions are true for a given NVO network, then IR
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
provides a simple solution for multi-destination traffic. However,
the statement c) above is not always true and multicast applications
are required in many use-cases.
When the multicast sources are attached to NVEs residing in
hypervisors or low-performance-replication TORs, the ingress
replication of a large amount of multicast traffic to a significant
number of remote NVEs/PEs can seriously degrade the performance of
the NVE and impact the application.
This document describes a solution that makes use of two IR
optimizations:
i) Assisted-Replication (AR)
ii) Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL)
Both optimizations may be used together or independently so that the
performance and efficiency of the network to transport multicast can
be improved. Both solutions require some extensions to [EVPN] that
are described in section 3.
Section 2 lists the requirements of the combined optimized-IR
solution, whereas sections 4 and 5 describe the Assisted-Replication
(AR) solution, and section 6 the Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL) solution.
2. Solution requirements
The IR optimization solution (optimized-IR hereafter) MUST meet the
following requirements:
a) The solution MUST provide an IR optimization for BM (Broadcast and
Multicast) traffic, while preserving the packet order for unicast
applications, i.e. known and unknown unicast traffic SHALL follow
the same path.
b) The solution MUST be compatible with [EVPN] and [EVPN-OVERLAY] and
not have any impact on the EVPN procedures for BM traffic. In
particular, the solution MUST support the following EVPN
functions:
o All-active multi-homing, including the split-horizon and
Designated Forwarder (DF) functions.
o Single-active multi-homing, including the DF function.
o Handling of multi-destination traffic and processing of
broadcast and multicast as per [EVPN].
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
c) The solution MUST be backwards compatible with existing NVEs using
a non-optimized version of IR. A given EVI can have NVEs/PEs
supporting regular-IR and optimized-IR.
d) The solution MUST be independent of the NVO specific data plane
encapsulation and the virtual identifiers being used, e.g.: VXLAN
VNIs, NVGRE VSIDs or MPLS labels.
3. EVPN BGP Attributes for optimized-IR
This solution proposes some changes to the [EVPN] Inclusive Multicast
Ethernet Tag routes and attributes so that an NVE/PE can signal its
optimized-IR capabilities.
The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route (RT-3) and its PMSI Tunnel
Attribute's (PTA) general format used in [EVPN] are shown below:
+---------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Addr |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
+---------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+---------------------------------+
The Flags field is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+
|rsved| T |BM|U|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+
Where a new type field (for AR) and two new flags (for PFL signaling)
are defined:
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
- T is the AR Type field (2 bits) that defines the AR role of the
advertising router:
+ 00 (decimal 0) = RNVE (non-AR support)
+ 01 (decimal 1) = AR-REPLICATOR
+ 10 (decimal 2) = AR-LEAF
- The PFL (Pruned-Flood-Lists) flags defined the desired behavior of
the advertising router for the different types of traffic:
+ BM= Broadcast and Multicast (BM) flag. BM=1 means "prune-me" from
the BM flooding list. BM=0 means regular behavior.
+ U= Unknown flag. U=1 means "prune-me" from the Unknown flooding
list. U=0 means regular behavior.
- Flag L is an existing flag defined in [RFC6514] (L=Leaf Information
Required) and it will be used only in the Selective AR Solution.
Please refer to section 10 for the IANA considerations related to the
PTA flags.
In this document, the above RT-3 and PTA can be used in three
different modes for the same EVI/Ethernet Tag:
o Regular-IR route: in this route, Originating Router's IP Address,
Tunnel Type (0x06), MPLS Label, Tunnel Identifier and Flags MUST be
used as described in [EVPN]. The Originating Router's IP Address
and Tunnel Identifier are set to an IP address that we denominate
IR-IP in this document.
o Replicator-AR route: this route is used by the AR-REPLICATOR to
advertise its AR capabilities, with the fields set as follows.
+ Originating Router's IP Address as well as the Tunnel Identifier
are set to the same routable IP address that we denominate AR-IP
and SHOULD be different than the IR-IP for a given PE/NVE.
+ Tunnel Type = Assisted-Replication (AR). Section 11 provides the
allocated type value.
+ T (AR role type) = 01 (AR-REPLICATOR).
+ L (Leaf Information Required) = 0 (for non-selective AR) or 1
(for selective AR).
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
o Leaf-AR route: this route MAY be used by the AR-LEAF to advertise
its desire to receive the multicast traffic from a specific AR-
REPLICATOR. It is only used for selective AR and its fields are set
as follows:
+ Originating Router's IP Address is set to the advertising IR-IP
(same IP used by the AR-LEAF in regular-IR routes).
+ Tunnel Identifier is set to the AR-IP of the AR-REPLICATOR from
which the multicast traffic is requested.
+ Tunnel Type = Assisted-Replication (AR). Section 11 provides the
allocated type value.
+ T (AR role type) = 02 (AR-LEAF).
Each AR-enabled node MUST understand and process the AR type field in
the PTA (Flags field) of replicator-AR and leaf-AR routes, and MUST
signal the corresponding type (1 or 2) according to its
administrative choice for replicator-AR and leaf-AR routes.
Each node, part of the EVI, MAY understand and process the BM/U
flags. Note that these BM/U flags may be used to optimize the
delivery of multi-destination traffic and its use SHOULD be an
administrative choice, and independent of the AR role.
Non-optimized-IR nodes will be unaware of the new PMSI attribute flag
definition as well as the new Tunnel Type (AR), i.e. they will ignore
the information contained in the flags field for any RT-3 and will
ignore the RT-3 routes with an unknown Tunnel Type (type AR in this
case).
4. Non-selective Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description
The following figure illustrates an example NVO network where the
non-selective AR function is enabled. Three different roles are
defined for a given EVI: AR-REPLICATOR, AR-LEAF and RNVE (Regular
NVE). The solution is called "non-selective" because the chosen AR-
REPLICATOR for a given flow MUST replicate the multicast traffic to
'all' the NVE/PEs in the EVI except for the source NVE/PE.
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
( )
(_ WAN _)
+---(_ _)----+
| (_ _) |
PE1 | PE2 |
+------+----+ +----+------+
TS1--+ (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) +--TS2
|REPLICATOR | |REPLICATOR |
+--------+--+ +--+--------+
| |
+--+----------------+--+
| |
| |
+----+ VXLAN/nvGRE/MPLSoGRE +----+
| | IP Fabric | |
| | | |
NVE1 | +-----------+----------+ | NVE3
Hypervisor| TOR | NVE2 |Hypervisor
+---------+-+ +-----+-----+ +-+---------+
| (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) | | (EVI-1) |
| LEAF | | RNVE | | LEAF |
+--+-----+--+ +--+-----+--+ +--+-----+--+
| | | | | |
VM11 VM12 TS3 TS4 VM31 VM32
Figure 1 Optimized-IR scenario
4.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR procedures
An AR-REPLICATOR is defined as an NVE/PE capable of replicating
ingress BM (Broadcast and Multicast) traffic received on an overlay
tunnel to other overlay tunnels and local Attachment Circuits (ACs).
The AR-REPLICATOR signals its role in the control plane and
understands where the other roles (AR-LEAF nodes, RNVEs and other AR-
REPLICATORs) are located. A given AR-enabled EVI service may have
zero, one or more AR-REPLICATORs. In our example in figure 1, PE1 and
PE2 are defined as AR-REPLICATORs. The following considerations apply
to the AR-REPLICATOR role:
a) The AR-REPLICATOR role SHOULD be an administrative choice in any
NVE/PE that is part of an AR-enabled EVI. This administrative
option to enable AR-REPLICATOR capabilities MAY be implemented as
a system level option as opposed to as a per-EVI option.
b) An AR-REPLICATOR MUST advertise a Replicator-AR route and MAY
advertise a Regular-IR route. The AR-REPLICATOR MUST NOT generate
a Regular-IR route if it does not have local attachment circuits
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
(AC).
c) The Replicator-AR and Regular-IR routes will be generated
according to section 3. The AR-IP and IR-IP used by the
Replicator-AR will be different routable IP addresses.
d) When a node defined as AR-REPLICATOR receives a packet on an
overlay tunnel, it will do a tunnel destination IP lookup and
apply the following procedures:
o If the destination IP is the AR-REPLICATOR IR-IP Address the
node will process the packet normally as in [EVPN].
o If the destination IP is the AR-REPLICATOR AR-IP Address the
node MUST replicate the packet to local ACs and overlay
tunnels (excluding the overlay tunnel to the source of the
packet). When replicating to remote AR-REPLICATORs the tunnel
destination IP will be an IR-IP. That will be an indication
for the remote AR-REPLICATOR that it MUST NOT replicate to
overlay tunnels. The tunnel source IP will be the AR-IP of the
AR-REPLICATOR.
4.2. Non-selective AR-LEAF procedures
AR-LEAF is defined as an NVE/PE that - given its poor replication
performance - sends all the BM traffic to an AR-REPLICATOR that can
replicate the traffic further on its behalf. It MAY signal its AR-
LEAF capability in the control plane and understands where the other
roles are located (AR-REPLICATOR and RNVEs). A given service can have
zero, one or more AR-LEAF nodes. Figure 1 shows NVE1 and NVE2 (both
residing in hypervisors) acting as AR-LEAF. The following
considerations apply to the AR-LEAF role:
a) The AR-LEAF role SHOULD be an administrative choice in any NVE/PE
that is part of an AR-enabled EVI. This administrative option to
enable AR-LEAF capabilities MAY be implemented as a system level
option as opposed to as per-EVI option.
b) In this non-selective AR solution, the AR-LEAF MUST advertise a
single Regular-IR inclusive multicast route as in [EVPN]. The AR-
LEAF SHOULD set the AR Type field to AR-LEAF. Note that although
this flag does not make any difference for the egress nodes when
creating an EVPN destination to the the AR-LEAF, it is RECOMMENDED
the use of this flag for an easy operation and troubleshooting of
the EVI.
c) In a service where there are no AR-REPLICATORs, the AR-LEAF MUST
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
use regular ingress replication. This will happen when a new
update from the last former AR-REPLICATOR is received and contains
a non-REPLICATOR AR type, or when the AR-LEAF detects that the
last AR-REPLICATOR is down (next-hop tracking in the IGP or any
other detection mechanism). Ingress replication MUST use the
forwarding information given by the remote Regular-IR Inclusive
Multicast Routes as described in [EVPN].
d) In a service where there is one or more AR-REPLICATORs (based on
the received Replicator-AR routes for the EVI), the AR-LEAF can
locally select which AR-REPLICATOR it sends the BM traffic to:
o A single AR-REPLICATOR MAY be selected for all the BM packets
received on the AR-LEAF attachment circuits (ACs) for a given
EVI. This selection is a local decision and it does not have
to match other AR-LEAF's selection within the same EVI.
o An AR-LEAF MAY select more than one AR-REPLICATOR and do
either per-flow or per-EVI load balancing.
o In case of a failure on the selected AR-REPLICATOR, another
AR-REPLICATOR will be selected.
o When an AR-REPLICATOR is selected, the AR-LEAF MUST send all
the BM packets to that AR-REPLICATOR using the forwarding
information given by the Replicator-AR route for the chosen
AR-REPLICATOR, with tunnel type = TBD (AR tunnel). The
underlay destination IP address MUST be the AR-IP advertised
by the AR-REPLICATOR in the Replicator-AR route.
o AR-LEAF nodes SHALL send service-level BM control plane
packets following regular IR procedures. An example would be
IGMP, MLD or PIM multicast packets. The AR-REPLICATORs MUST
not replicate these control plane packets to other overlay
tunnels since they will use the regular IR-IP Address.
e) The use of an AR-REPLICATOR-activation-timer (in seconds) on the
AR-LEAF nodes is RECOMMENDED. Upon receiving a new Replicator-AR
route where the AR-REPLICATOR is selected, the AR-LEAF will run a
timer before programming the new AR-REPLICATOR. This will give the
AR-REPLICATOR some time to program the AR-LEF nodes before the AR-
LEAF sends BM traffic.
4.3. RNVE procedures
RNVE (Regular Network Virtualization Edge node) is defined as an
NVE/PE without AR-REPLICATOR or AR-LEAF capabilities that does IR as
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
described in [EVPN]. The RNVE does not signal any AR role and is
unaware of the AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF roles in the EVI. The RNVE will
ignore the Flags in the Regular-IR routes and will ignore the
Replicator-AR and Leaf-AR routes entirely (due to an unknown tunnel
type in the PTA).
This role provides EVPN with the backwards compatibility required in
optimized-IR EVIs. Figure 1 shows NVE2 as RNVE.
4.4. Forwarding behavior in non-selective AR EVIs
In AR EVIs, BM (Broadcast and Multicast) traffic between two NVEs may
follow a different path than unicast traffic. This solution proposes
the replication of BM through the AR-REPLICATOR node, whereas
unknown/known unicast will be delivered directly from the source node
to the destination node without being replicated by any intermediate
node. Unknown unicast SHALL follow the same path as known unicast
traffic in order to avoid packet reordering for unicast applications
and simplify the control and data plane procedures. Section 4.4.1.
describes the expected forwarding behavior for BM traffic in nodes
acting as AR-REPLICATOR, AR-LEAF and RNVE. Section 4.4.2. describes
the forwarding behavior for unknown unicast traffic.
Note that known unicast forwarding is not impacted by this solution.
4.4.1. Broadcast and Multicast forwarding behavior
The expected behavior per role is described in this section.
4.4.1.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding
The AR-REPLICATORs will build a flooding list composed of ACs and
overlay tunnels to remote nodes in the EVI. Some of those overlay
tunnels MAY be flagged as non-BM receivers based on the BM flag
received from the remote nodes in the EVI.
o When an AR-REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an AC, it will
forward the BM packet to its flooding list (including local ACs and
remote NVE/PEs), skipping the non-BM overlay tunnels.
o When an AR-REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an overlay tunnel, it
will check the destination IP of the underlay IP header and:
- If the destination IP matches its AR-IP, the AR-REPLICATOR will
forward the BM packet to its flooding list (ACs and overlay
tunnels) excluding the non-BM overlay tunnels. The AR-REPLICATOR
will do source squelching to ensure the traffic is not sent back
to the originating AR-LEAF. If the overlay encapsulation is MPLS
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
and the EVI label is not the bottom of the stack, the AR-
REPLICATOR MUST copy the rest of the labels and forward them to
the egress overlay tunnels.
- If the destination IP matches its IR-IP, the AR-REPLICATOR will
skip all the overlay tunnels from the flooding list, i.e. it
will only replicate to local ACs. This is the regular IR
behavior described in [EVPN].
4.4.1.2. Non-selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding
The AR-LEAF nodes will build two flood-lists:
1) Flood-list #1 - composed of ACs and an AR-REPLICATOR-set of
overlay tunnels. The AR-REPLICATOR-set is defined as one or more
overlay tunnels to the AR-IP Addresses of the remote AR-
REPLICATOR(s) in the EVI. The selection of more than one AR-
REPLICATOR is described in section 4.2. and it is a local AR-
LEAF decision.
2) Flood-list #2 - composed of ACs and overlay tunnels to the
remote IR-IP Addresses.
When an AR-LEAF receives a BM packet on an AC, it will check the
AR-REPLICATOR-set:
o If the AR-REPLICATOR-set is empty, the AR-LEAF will send the packet
to flood-list #2.
o If the AR-REPLICATOR-set is NOT empty, the AR-LEAF will send the
packet to flood-list #1, where only one of the overlay tunnels of
the AR-REPLICATOR-set is used.
When an AR-LEAF receives a BM packet on an overlay tunnel, will
forward the BM packet to its local ACs and never to an overlay
tunnel. This is the regular IR behavior described in [EVPN].
4.4.1.3. RNVE BM forwarding
The RNVE is completely unaware of the AR-REPLICATORs, AR-LEAF nodes
and BM/U flags (that information is ignored). Its forwarding behavior
is the regular IR behavior described in [EVPN]. Any regular non-AR
node is fully compatible with the RNVE role described in this
document.
4.4.2. Unknown unicast forwarding behavior
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
The expected behavior is described in this section.
4.4.2.1. Non-selective AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF Unknown unicast forwarding
While the forwarding behavior in AR-REPLICATORs and AR-LEAF nodes is
different for BM traffic, as far as Unknown unicast traffic
forwarding is concerned, AR-LEAF nodes behave exactly in the same way
as AR-REPLICATORs do.
The AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF nodes will build a flood-list composed of ACs
and overlay tunnels to the IR-IP Addresses of the remote nodes in the
EVI. Some of those overlay tunnels MAY be flagged as non-U (Unknown
unicast) receivers based on the U flag received from the remote nodes
in the EVI.
o When an AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF receives an unknown packet on an AC, it
will forward the unknown packet to its flood-list, skipping the
non-U overlay tunnels.
o When an AR-REPLICATOR/LEAF receives an unknown packet on an overlay
tunnel will forward the unknown packet to its local ACs and never
to an overlay tunnel. This is the regular IR behavior described in
[EVPN].
4.4.2.2. RNVE Unknown unicast forwarding
As described for BM traffic, the RNVE is completely unaware of the
REPLICATORs, LEAF nodes and BM/U flags (that information is ignored).
Its forwarding behavior is the regular IR behavior described in
[EVPN], also for Unknown unicast traffic. Any regular non-AR node is
fully compatible with the RNVE role described in this document.
5. Selective Assisted-Replication (AR) Solution Description
Figure 1 is also used to describe the selective AR solution, however
in this section we consider NVE2 as one more AR-LEAF for EVI-1. The
solution is called "selective" because a given AR-REPLICATOR MUST
replicate the BM traffic to only the AR-LEAF that requested the
replication (as opposed to all the AR-LEAF nodes) and MAY replicate
the BM traffic to the RNVEs. The same AR roles defined in section 4
are used here, however the procedures are slightly different.
The following sub-sections describe the differences in the procedures
of AR-REPLICATOR/LEAFs compared to the non-selective AR solution.
There is no change on the RNVEs.
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
5.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR procedures
In our example in figure 1, PE1 and PE2 are defined as Selective AR-
REPLICATORs. The following considerations apply to the Selective AR-
REPLICATOR role:
a) The Selective AR-REPLICATOR capability SHOULD be an administrative
choice in any NVE/PE that is part of an AR-enabled EVI, as the AR
role itself. This administrative option MAY be implemented as a
system level option as opposed to as a per-EVI option.
b) Each AR-REPLICATOR will build a list of AR-REPLICATOR, AR-LEAF and
RNVE nodes (AR-LEAF nodes that sent only a regular-IR route are
accounted as RNVEs by the AR-REPLICATOR). In spite of the
'Selective' administrative option, an AR-REPLICATOR MUST NOT
behave as a Selective AR-REPLICATOR if at least one of the AR-
REPLICATORs has the L flag NOT set. If at least one AR-REPLICATOR
sends a Replicator-AR route with L=0 (in the EVI context), the
rest of the AR-REPLICATORs will fall back to non-selective AR
mode.
b) The Selective AR-REPLICATOR MUST follow the procedures described
in section 4.1, except for the following differences:
o The Replicator-AR route MUST include L=1 (Leaf Information
Required) in the Replicator-AR route. This flag is used by the
AR-REPLICATORs to advertise their 'selective' AR-REPLICATOR
capabilities.
o The AR-REPLICATOR will build a 'selective' AR-LEAF-set with
the list of nodes that requested replication to its own AR-IP.
For instance, assuming NVE1 and NVE2 advertise a Leaf-AR route
with PE1's AR-IP (as Tunnel Identifier) and NVE3 advertises a
Leaf-AR route with PE2's AR-IP, PE1 MUST only add NVE1/NVE2 in
its selective AR-LEAF-set for EVI-1, and exclude NVE3.
o When a node defined and operating as Selective AR-REPLICATOR
receives a packet on an overlay tunnel, it will do a tunnel
destination IP lookup and if the destination IP is the AR-
REPLICATOR AR-IP Address, the node MUST replicate the packet
to:
+ local ACs
+ overlay tunnels in the Selective AR-LEAF-set (excluding the
overlay tunnel to the source AR-LEAF).
+ overlay tunnels to the RNVEs if the tunnel source IP is the
IR-IP of an AR-LEAF (in any other case, the AR-REPLICATOR
MUST NOT replicate the BM traffic to remote RNVEs). In other
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
words, the first-hop selective AR-REPLICATOR will replicate
to all the RNVEs.
+ overlay tunnels to the remote Selective AR-REPLICATORs if
the tunnel source IP is the IR-IP of its own AR-LEAF-set (in
any other case, the AR-REPLICATOR MUST NOT replicate the BM
traffic to remote AR-REPLICATORs), where the tunnel
destination IP is the AR-IP of the remote Selective AR-
REPLICATOR. The tunnel destination IP AR-IP will be an
indication for the remote Selective AR-REPLICATOR that the
packet needs further replication to its AR-LEAFs.
5.2. Selective AR-LEAF procedures
A Selective AR-LEAF chooses a single Selective AR-REPLICATOR per EVI
and:
o Sends all the EVI BM traffic to that AR-REPLICATOR and
o Expects to receive the BM traffic for a given EVI from the same AR-
REPLICATOR.
In the example of Figure 1, we consider that NVE1/NVE2/NVE3 as
Selective AR-LEAFs. NVE1 selects PE1 as its Selective AR-REPLICATOR.
If that is so, NVE1 will send all its BM traffic for EVI-1 to PE1. If
other AR-LEAF/REPLICATORs send BM traffic, NVE1 will receive that
traffic from PE1. These are the differences in the behavior of a
Selective AR-LEAF compared to a non-selective AR-LEAF:
a) The AR-LEAF role selective capability SHOULD be an administrative
choice in any NVE/PE that is part of an AR-enabled EVI. This
administrative option to enable AR-LEAF capabilities MAY be
implemented as a system level option as opposed to as per-EVI
option.
b) The AR-LEAF MAY advertise a Regular-IR route if there are RNVEs or
non-selective AR-LEAFs in the EVI. The Selective AR-LEAF MUST
advertise a Leaf-AR route after receiving a Replicator-AR route
with L=1. It is recommended that the Selective AR-LEAF waits for a
timer t before sending the Leaf-AR route, so that the AR-LEAF
receives all the Replicator-AR routes for the EVI.
c) In a service where there is more than one Selective AR-REPLICATORs
the Selective AR-LEAF MUST locally select a single Selective AR-
REPLICATOR for the EVI. Once selected:
o The Selective AR-LEAF will send a Leaf-AR route including the
AR-IP of the selected AR-REPLICATOR.
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
o The Selective AR-LEAF will send all the BM packets received on
the attachment circuits (ACs) for a given EVI to that AR-
REPLICATOR.
o In case of a failure on the selected AR-REPLICATOR, another
AR-REPLICATOR will be selected and a new Leaf-AR update will
be issued, including the new AR-IP. This new route will update
the selective list in the new Selective AR-REPLICATOR. In case
of failure on the active Selective AR-REPLICATOR, it is
recommended for the Selective AR-LEAF to revert to IR behavior
for a timer t to speed up the convergence. When the timer
expires, the Selective AR-LEAF will resume its AR mode with
the new Selective AR-REPLICATOR.
5.3. Forwarding behavior in selective AR EVIs
This section describes the differences of the selective AR forwarding
mode compared to the non-selective mode. Compared to section 4.4,
there are no changes for the forwarding behavior in RNVEs or for
unknown unicast traffic.
5.3.1. Selective AR-REPLICATOR BM forwarding
The Selective AR-REPLICATORs will build two flood-lists:
1) Flood-list #1 - composed of ACs and overlay tunnels to the
remote nodes in the EVI, always using the IR-IPs in the tunnel
destination IP addresses. Some of those overlay tunnels MAY be
flagged as non-BM receivers based on the BM flag received from
the remote nodes in the EVI.
2) Flood-list #2 - composed of ACs, a Selective AR-LEAF-set and a
Selective AR-REPLICATOR-set, where:
o The Selective AR-LEAF-set is composed of the overlay tunnels
to the AR-LEAFs that advertise a Leaf-AR route with the AR-IP
of the local AR-REPLICATOR. This set is updated with every
Leaf-AR route received with a change in the AR-IP included in
the PTA's Tunnel Identifier.
o The Selective AR-REPLICATOR-set is composed of the overlay
tunnels to all the AR-REPLICATORs that send a Replicator-AR
route with L=1. The AR-IP addresses are used as tunnel
destination IP.
When a Selective AR-REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an AC, it will
forward the BM packet to its flood-list #1, skipping the non-BM
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
overlay tunnels.
When a Selective AR-REPLICATOR receives a BM packet on an overlay
tunnel, it will check the destination and source IPs of the underlay
IP header and:
- If the destination IP matches its AR-IP and the source IP
matches an IP of its own Selective AR-LEAF-set, the AR-
REPLICATOR will forward the BM packet to its flood-list #2, as
long as the list of AR-REPLICATORs for the EVI matches the
Selective AR-REPLICATOR-set. If the Selective AR-REPLICATOR-set
does not match the list of AR-REPLICATORs, the node reverts back
to non-selective mode and flood-list #1 is used.
- If the destination IP matches its AR-IP and the source IP does
not match any IP of its Selective AR-LEAF-set, the AR-REPLICATOR
will forward the BM packet to flood-list #2 but skipping the AR-
REPLICATOR-set.
- If the destination IP matches its IR-IP, the AR-REPLICATOR will
use flood-list #1 but MUST skip all the overlay tunnels from the
flooding list, i.e. it will only replicate to local ACs. This is
the regular-IR behavior described in [EVPN].
In any case, non-BM overlay tunnels are excluded from flood-lists and
also source squelching is always done in order to ensure the traffic
is not sent back to the originating source. If the overlay
encapsulation is MPLS and the EVI label is not the bottom of the
stack, the AR-REPLICATOR MUST copy the rest of the labels when
forwarding them to the egress overlay tunnels.
5.3.2. Selective AR-LEAF BM forwarding
The Selective AR-LEAF nodes will build two flood-lists:
1) Flood-list #1 - composed of ACs and the overlay tunnel to the
selected AR-REPLICATOR (using the AR-IP as the tunnel
destination IP).
2) Flood-list #2 - composed of ACs and overlay tunnels to the
remote IR-IP Addresses.
When an AR-LEAF receives a BM packet on an AC, it will check if there
is any selected AR-REPLICATOR. If there is, flood-list #1 will be
used. Otherwise, flood-list #2 will.
When an AR-LEAF receives a BM packet on an overlay tunnel, will
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
forward the BM packet to its local ACs and never to an overlay
tunnel. This is the regular IR behavior described in [EVPN].
6. Pruned-Flood-Lists (PFL)
In addition to AR, the second optimization supported by this solution
is the ability for the all the EVI nodes to signal Pruned-Flood-Lists
(PFL). As described in section 3, an EVPN node can signal a given
value for the BM and U PFL flags in the IR Inclusive Multicast
Routes, where:
+ BM= Broadcast and Multicast (BM) flag. BM=1 means "prune-me" from
the BM flood-list. BM=0 means regular behavior.
+ U= Unknown flag. U=1 means "prune-me" from the Unknown flood-list.
U=0 means regular behavior.
The ability to signal these PFL flags is an administrative choice.
Upon receiving a non-zero PFL flag, a node MAY decide to honor the
PFL flag and remove the sender from the corresponding flood-list. A
given EVI node receiving BUM traffic on an overlay tunnel MUST
replicate the traffic normally, regardless of the signaled PFL
flags.
This optimization MAY be used along with the AR solution.
6.1. A PFL example
In order to illustrate the use of the solution described in this
document, we will assume that EVI-1 in figure 1 is optimized-IR
enabled and:
o PE1 and PE2 are administratively configured as AR-REPLICATORs, due
to their high-performance replication capabilities. PE1 and PE2
will send a Replicator-AR route with BM/U flags = 00.
o NVE1 and NVE3 are administratively configured as AR-LEAF nodes, due
to their low-performance software-based replication capabilities.
They will advertise a Leaf-AR route. Assuming both NVEs advertise
all the attached VMs in EVPN as soon as they come up and don't have
any VMs interested in multicast applications, they will be
configured to signal BM/U flags = 11 for EVI-1.
o NVE2 is optimized-IR unaware; therefore it takes on the RNVE role
in EVI-1.
Based on the above assumptions the following forwarding behavior will
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
take place:
(1) Any BM packets sent from VM11 will be sent to VM12 and PE1. PE1
will forward further the BM packets to TS1, WAN link, PE2 and
NVE2, but not to NVE3. PE2 and NVE2 will replicate the BM packets
to their local ACs but we will avoid NVE3 having to replicate
unnecessarily those BM packets to VM31 and VM32.
(2) Any BM packets received on PE2 from the WAN will be sent to PE1
and NVE2, but not to NVE1 and NVE3, sparing the two hypervisors
from replicating unnecessarily to their local VMs. PE1 and NVE2
will replicate to their local ACs only.
(3) Any Unknown unicast packet sent from VM31 will be forwarded by
NVE3 to NVE2, PE1 and PE2 but not NVE1. The solution avoids the
unnecessary replication to NVE1, since the destination of the
unknown traffic cannot be at NVE1.
(4) Any Unknown unicast packet sent from TS1 will be forwarded by PE1
to the WAN link, PE2 and NVE2 but not to NVE1 and NVE3, since the
target of the unknown traffic cannot be at those NVEs.
7. AR Procedures for single-IP AR-REPLICATORS
The procedures explained in sections 4 (Non-selective AR) and 5
(Selective AR) assume that the AR-REPLICATOR can use two local
routable IP addresses to terminate and initiate NVO tunnels, i.e. IR-
IP and AR-IP addresses. This is usually the case for PE-based AR-
REPLICATOR nodes.
In some cases, the AR-REPLICATOR node does not support more than one
IP address to terminate and initiate NVO tunnels, i.e. the IR-IP and
AR-IP are the same IP addresses. This may be the case in some
software-based or low-end AR-REPLICATOR nodes. If this is the case,
the procedures in sections 4 and 5 must be modified in the following
way:
o The Replicator-AR routes generated by the AR-REPLICATOR use an AR-
IP that will match its IR-IP. In order to differentiate the data
plane packets that need to use IR from the packets that must use AR
forwarding mode, the Replicator-AR route must advertise a different
VNI/VSID than the one used by the Regular-IR route. For instance,
the AR-REPLICATOR will advertise AR-VNI along with the Replicator-
AR route and IR-VNI along with the Regular-IR route. Since both
routes have the same key, different RDs are needed for both routes.
o An AR-REPLICATOR will perform IR or AR forwarding mode for the
incoming Overlay packets based on an ingress VNI lookup, as opposed
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
to the tunnel IP DA lookup described in sections 4 and 5. Note
that, when replicating to remote AR-REPLICATOR nodes, the use of
the IR-VNI or AR-VNI advertised by the egress node will determine
the IR or AR forwarding mode at the subsequent AR-REPLICATOR.
The rest of the procedures will follow what is described in sections
4 and 5.
8. AR Procedures and EVPN Multi-homing Split-Horizon
When EVPN is used for MPLS over GRE, all the multi-homing procedures
are compatible with sections 4 and 5 of this document.
If VXLAN or NVGRE are used, and if the Split-horizon is based on the
tunnel IP SA and "Local-Bias" as described in [EVPN-OVERLAY], the
Split-horizon check will not work if there is an Ethernet-Segment
shared between two AR-LEAF nodes, and the AR-REPLICATOR changes the
tunnel IP SA of the packets with its own AR-IP.
In order to be compatible with the IP SA split-horizon check, the AR-
REPLICATOR MAY keep the original received tunnel IP SA when
replicating packets to a remote AR-LEAF or AR-REPLICATOR. This will
allow DF (Designated Forwarder) AR-LEAF nodes to apply Split-horizon
check procedures for BM packets, before sending them to the local
Ethernet-Segment.
Note that if the AR-REPLICATOR implementation keeps the received
tunnel IP SA, the use of uRPF in the IP fabric based on the tunnel IP
SA MUST be disabled.
9. Out-of-band distribution of Broadcast/Multicast traffic
The use of out-of-band mechanisms to distribute BM traffic between
AR-REPLICATORS MAY be used. Details will be provided in future
versions of this document.
10. Benefits of the optimized-IR solution
A solution for the optimization of Ingress Replication in EVPN is
described in this document (optimized-IR). The solution brings the
following benefits:
o Optimizes the multicast forwarding in low-performance NVEs, by
relaying the replication to high-performance NVEs (AR-REPLICATORs)
and while preserving the packet ordering for unicast applications.
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
o Reduces the flooded traffic in NVO networks where some NVEs do not
need broadcast/multicast and/or unknown unicast traffic.
o It is fully compatible with existing EVPN implementations and EVPN
functions for NVO overlay tunnels. Optimized-IR NVEs and regular
NVEs can be even part of the same EVI.
o It does not require any PIM-based tree in the NVO core of the
network.
11. Conventions used in this document
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.
12. Security Considerations
This section will be added in future versions.
13. IANA Considerations
A new Tunnel-Type (AR) must be requested and allocated by IANA for
the PTA (PMSI Tunnel Attribute) used in this document.
In addition to the new Tunnel-Type, this document requests the
allocation of the PTA flags as in section 3. A registry is created as
per [PTA-FLAGS].
14. Terminology
Regular-IR: Refers to Regular Ingress Replication, where the source
NVE/PE sends a copy to each remote NVE/PE part of the EVI.
AR-IP: IP address owned by the AR-REPLICATOR and used to
differentiate the ingress traffic that must follow the AR
procedures.
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
IR-IP: IP address used for Ingress Replication as in [EVPN].
AR-VNI: VNI advertised by the AR-REPLICATOR along with the
Replicator-AR route. It is used to identify the ingress
packets that must follow AR procedures ONLY in the Single-IP
AR-REPLICATOR case.
IR-VNI: VNI advertised along with the RT-3 for IR.
AR forwarding mode: for an AR-LEF, it means sending an AC BM packet
to a single AR-REPLICATOR with tunnel destination IP AR-IP.
For an AR-REPLICATOR, it means sending a BM packet to a
selective number or all the overlay tunnels when the packet
was previously received from an overlay tunnel.
IR forwarding mode: it refers to the Ingress Replication behavior
explained in [EVPN]. It means sending an AC BM packet copy to
each remote PE/NVE in the EVI and sending an overlay BM packet
only to the ACs and not other overlay tunnels.
PTA: PMSI Tunnel Attribute
RT-3: EVPN Route Type 3, Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route
15. References
15.1 Normative References
[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, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
15.2 Informative References
[EVPN-OVERLAY] Sajassi-Drake et al., "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution using EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02.txt,
work in progress, October 2015
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
[PTA-FLAGS] Rosen, E., "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service
Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags", draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-01.txt,
work in progress, August 2015
16. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Neil Hart, David Motz, Kiran Nagaraj,
Dai Truong, Thomas Morin and Jeffrey Zhang for their valuable
feedback and contributions.
17. Authors' Addresses
Jorge Rabadan (Editor)
Nokia
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043 USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Senthil Sathappan
Nokia
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
Mukul Katiyar
Juniper Networks
Email: mkatiyar@juniper.net
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Ravi Shekhar
Juniper Networks
Email: rshekhar@juniper.net
Nischal Sheth
Juniper Networks
Email: nsheth@juniper.net
Wen Lin
Juniper Networks
Email: wlin@juniper.net
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft EVPN Optimized IR February 29, 2016
Aldrin Isaac
Juniper
Email: aisaac@juniper.net
Mudassir Tufail
Citibank
mudassir.tufail@citi.com
Rabadan et al. Expires September 1, 2016 [Page 24]