Skip to main content

MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,,,
Subject: Protocol Action: 'MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels'
  (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-14.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jim Guichard, Andrew Alston and John Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The MVPN specifications allow a single Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
   tunnel to carry traffic of multiple VPNs.  The EVPN specifications
   allow a single P2MP tunnel to carry traffic of multiple Broadcast
   Domains (BDs).  These features require the ingress router of the P2MP
   tunnel to allocate an upstream-assigned MPLS label for each VPN or
   for each BD.  A packet sent on a P2MP tunnel then carries the label
   that is mapped to its VPN or BD (in some cases, a distinct upstream-
   assigned label is needed for each flow.)  Since each ingress router
   allocates labels independently, with no coordination among the
   ingress routers, the egress routers may need to keep track of a large
   number of labels.  The number of labels may need to be as large (or
   larger) than the product of the number of ingress routers times the
   number of VPNs or BDs.  However, the number of labels can be greatly
   reduced if the association between a label and a VPN or BD is made by
   provisioning, so that all ingress routers assign the same label to a
   particular VPN or BD.  New procedures are needed in order to take
   advantage of such provisioned labels.  These new procedures also
   apply to Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) tunnels.  This document
   updates RFCs 6514, 7432 and 7582 by specifying the necessary

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

No issues were found in the working group on this draft and it didn't generate any controversy.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are reported implementations of this draft.


   The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The
   Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston.

RFC Editor Note