VPN Prefix Outbound Route Filter (VPN Prefix ORF) for BGP-4
draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-24
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 | Wei Wang , Aijun Wang , Haibo Wang , Gyan Mishra , Jie Dong | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-22 (Latest revision 2025-12-23) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-idr-vpn-prefix-orf | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
INTDIR Telechat review
(of
-37)
by Benson Muite
Ready w/issues
GENART IETF Last Call review
(of
-36)
by Peter Yee
Almost ready
OPSDIR Early review
(of
-22)
by Aihua Guo
Has issues
SECDIR Early review
(of
-20)
by Scott Kelly
Has issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Keyur Patel | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2025-08-14 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Ketan Talaulikar | ||
| Send notices to | shares@ndzh.com, keyur@arrcus.com |
draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-24
IDR Working Group W. Wang
Internet-Draft A. Wang
Intended status: Experimental China Telecom
Expires: 27 June 2026 H. Wang
Huawei Technologies
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
24 December 2025
VPN Prefix Outbound Route Filter (VPN Prefix ORF) for BGP-4
draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-24
Abstract
This draft defines a new type of Outbound Route Filter (ORF), known
as the Virtual Private Network (VPN) Prefix ORF. The VPN Prefix ORF
mechanism is applicable when VPN routes from different Virtual
Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instances are exchanged through a single
shared Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) session.The purpose of VPN
Prefix ORF mechanism is to control the overload of VPN routes based
on RT. With this mechanism, the overload can be limited within the
minimum range.
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 27 June 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Existing Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Route Target Constraint (RTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Address Prefix ORF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. CP-ORF Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. PE-CE edge peer Maximum Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Configuring the Maximum Prefix for each VRF on edge
nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. VPN Prefix ORF Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Source PE TLV (including 3 types) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Source AS TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Route Target TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. The general procedures of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism . . . . . 10
5.1. Process of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism on sender . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Protocol process of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism on
receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Source PE Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Quota value calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Withdraw of VPN Prefix ORF entries . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. VPN Prefix Outbound Route Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. VPN Prefix ORF TLV types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3. Source PE Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.4. Commen part of ORF entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Experimental topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix B. Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions . . . . . . . . 23
B.1. Scenario 1: unique RD (per VPN, per PE) . . . . . . . . . 23
B.2. Scenario 2: the same RD (per VPN, same on all PEs) . . . 26
Appendix C. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
BGP Maximum Prefix feature [RFC4486] is often used at the network
boundary to control the number of prefixes to be injected into the
network. But for some scenarios when the VPN routes from several
VRFs are advertised via one shared BGP session, there is lack of
appropriate methods to control the flooding of VPN routes within one
VRF to avoid overwhelming the processing of VPN routes in other VRFs,
which consequently affects the route processing performance of other
VRFs (such as route dropping, processing delays, and abnormal
customer services). Therefore, it is desirable that the excessive
VPN routes advertisement be controlled individually for each VRF in
such a shared BGP session.
There are several solutions that can be used to alleviate this
problem:
* Route Target Constraint (RTC) as defined in [RFC4684]
* Address Prefix ORF as defined in [RFC5292]
* Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter (CP-ORF) mechanism as
defined in [RFC7543]
* Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) edge peer Maximum Prefix
* Configuring the Maximum Prefix for each VRF on edge nodes
However, each existing solution has its own limitation as described
in Section 4.
This draft defines a new type of Outbound Route Filter (ORF), called
the VPN Prefix ORF. This ORF mechanism is event-driven and does not
require pre-configuration. When the number of VPN routes in a VRF
exceeds the prefix limit, the router will identify the VPN prefix
(Route Distinguisher (RD), Route Target (RT), source PE, etc.) of the
overload VPN routes in this VRF and send a VPN Prefix ORF message to
its BGP peer, who announced these overload routes. Upon receiving a
VPN Prefix ORF entry from its BGP peer, the BGP speaker will filter
and withdraw any overload VPN routes that was announced to its peer.
The purpose of this mechanism is to control the overload within the
minimum range and avoid route churn effects when a VRF on a device in
the network overflows.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
VPN Prefix ORF is applicable when the VPN routes from different VRFs
are exchanged via one shared BGP session.
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. Terminology
The following terms are used in this draft:
* AFI: Address Family Identifier, defined in [RFC4760]
* ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router.
* BGP: Border Gateway Protocol, defined in [RFC4271]
* EVPN: BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN, defined in [RFC7432]
* MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
* ORF: Outbound Route Filter, defined in [RFC5291]
* Quota: A threshold to limit the number of VPN routes under
specific granularities (such as <PE>, <RD, Source AS>).
* RD: Route Distinguisher, defined in [RFC4364]
* RIB: Routing Information Base.
* RR: Route Reflector, provides a simple solution to the problem of
IBGP full mesh connection in large-scale IBGP implementation
[RFC4456]
* RT: Route Target, defined in [RFC4364]
* SAFI: Subsequent Address Family Identifier, defined in [RFC4760]
* VPN: Virtual Private Networks, defined in [RFC4364]
* VRF: Virtual Routing Forwarding, a virtual routing table based on
VPN instance.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
3. Existing Solutions
3.1. Route Target Constraint (RTC)
RTC can only filter the VPN routes from any uninterested VRFs, if the
route overload comes from an interested VRF, the RTC mechanism can't
filter them.
3.2. Address Prefix ORF
Using Address Prefix ORF to filter VPN routes requires a pre-
configuration, but it is impossible to know in advance which prefix
may exceed the predefined threshold.
3.3. CP-ORF Mechanism
[RFC7543] defines the Covering Prefixes ORF (CP-ORF). A BGP speaker
sends a CP-ORF to a peer in order to pull routes that cover a
specified host address. A prefix covers a host address if it can be
used to forward traffic towards that host address.
CP-ORF is applicable in Virtual Hub-and-Spoke [RFC7024] VPN and also
BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] networks, but its primary
function is to retrieve interested VPN prefixes and it cannot be used
to filter overload of VPN prefixes dynamically.
3.4. PE-CE edge peer Maximum Prefix
The BGP Maximum-Prefix feature is used to control how many prefixes
can be received from a neighbor. By default, this feature allows a
router to drop overloading routes or bring down a peer when the
number of received prefixes from that peer exceeds the configured
Maximum-Prefix limit. This feature is commonly used for external BGP
peers. If it is applied to internal BGP peers, for example the VPN
scenarios, all the VPN routes from different VRFs will share the
common fate. If the number of VPN routes of a certain VPN exceeds
the configured Maximum-Prefix limit, the overloading VPN routes will
be dropped, or BGP session will be shut down, which will affect the
operation of other VPN routes transmitted via this BGP session.
If Maximum Prefix is configured on every PE-CE link, it can prevent
VPN route overflow. However, reliance solely on the sender side for
protection is insufficient; if the sender has not configured Maximum
Prefix, the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism can still prevent VPN route
overflow from occurring.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
3.5. Configuring the Maximum Prefix for each VRF on edge nodes
When a VRF overflows, some implementations may stops the import of
routes. Any additional VPN routes are held into its Routing
Information Base (RIB). However, PEs still need to parse the
incoming BGP messages. This will cost CPU cycles and further burden
the overflowed PE.
The VPN Prefix ORF mechanism improves upon this by enabling the
overloaded PE to signal the specific offending routes back to the
sender, which can then suppress them at the source—eliminating wasted
processing and preserving resources for healthy VRFs.
4. VPN Prefix ORF Encoding
In this section, we describe the encoding of VPN Prefix ORF entries.
The VPN Prefix ORF entries are carried in the BGP ROUTE-REFRESH
message as defined in [RFC5291]. A BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message can
carry one or more ORF entries. The format of a ROUTE-REFRESH message
which carries VPN Prefix ORF entries are as follows:
* AFI (2 octets). The AFI MUST be set to IPv4, IPv6, or Layer 2 VPN
(L2VPN).
* SAFI (1 octet). If the AFI is set to IPv4 or IPv6, the SAFI MUST
be set to MPLS-labeled VPN address. If the AFI is set to L2VPN,
the SAFI MUST be set to BGP EVPN. It is applicable for all types
of EVPN routes as mentioned in [RFC7432].
* When-to-refresh (1 octet): the value is IMMEDIATE or DEFER.
* ORF Type (1 octet): The type of VPN Prefix ORF is 66.
* Length of ORF entries (2 octets)
A VPN Prefix ORF entry contains a common part and type-specific part.
The encoding of the common part is shown in Figure 4.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Action (2 bits) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Match (1 bits) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Overload VPN routes process |
| method (1 bit) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Reserved (4 bits) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
Figure 5: VPN Prefix ORF type-specific encoding
* Action (2 bits): the value is ADD, REMOVE or REMOVE-ALL.
* Match (1 bit): the value is PERMIT or DENY
* Overload VPN routes process method (1 bit): if the value is set to
0, it means all overload VPN routes on the sender of VPN Prefix
ORF message SHOULD be withdrawn; if the value is set to 1, it
means the sender of VPN Prefix ORF message refuse to receive new
overload VPN routes. The default value is 0.
* Reserved (4 bits)
VPN Prefix ORF also contains type-specific part. The encoding of the
type-specific part is shown in Figure 5.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Sequence (4 octets) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Length (2 octets) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Route Distinguisher (8 octets) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
| |
| Optional TLVs (variable) |
| |
+-----------------------------------------+
Figure 5: VPN Prefix ORF type-specific encoding
* Sequence: identifying the order in which VPN Prefix ORF is
generated and evaluated. It can uniquely identify a VPN Prefix
ORF entry together with AFI/SAFI, ORF-Type, and Route
Distinguisher. The sequence numbers SHOULD be discontinuous to
facilitate the insertion of new rules at a later stage.
* Length: identifying the length of this VPN Prefix ORF entry.
* Route Distinguisher: distinguish the different user routes. The
VPN Prefix ORF filters the VPN routes it tends to send based on
Route Distinguisher. If RD is equal to 0, it means all VPN
prefixes.
* Optional TLVs: carry the potential additional information to give
the extensibility of the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism. Its format is
shown in Figure 6. If one or more TLV(s) are unrecognized, the
whole VPN Prefix ORF entry SHOULD be removed.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | value (variable) :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 The format of optional TLV(s)
Note that if the Action component of an ORF entry specifies REMOVE-
ALL, the ORF entry does not include the type-specific part.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
When the BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message carries VPN Prefix ORF entries, it
MUST be set as follows:
* The ORF-Type MUST be set to 66 (VPN Prefix ORF).
* The purpose of VPN Prefix ORF is to block unwanted VPN prefixes,
then the "action" of one valid entry SHOULD be set to "DENY". In
order to allow other allowed VPN prefixes pass the filter, one
default, last resort entry SHOULD be installed in advance in the
VPN Prefixes ORF table, with the RD is set to 0 and the
corresponding Sequence are set to 0xFFFFFFFF.
According to [RFC5291], if any of the fields of a VPN Prefix ORF
entry in the message contains an unrecognized value, the whole
specified ORF previously received is removed.
A BGP speaker that is willing to receive ORF entries from its peer,
or a BGP speaker that would like to send ORF entries to its peer,
advertises this capability to the peer by using the Outbound Route
Filtering Capability defined in [RFC5291].
4.1. Source PE TLV (including 3 types)
Source PE TLV is defined to identify the source of the VPN routes.
For the sender of VPN Prefix ORF, it will check the existence of SPE
EC on the VPN route being matched. If it exists, the sender will put
it into Source PE TLV. Otherwise, the value of Source PE TLV SHOULD
be set to next hop address.
The Source PE TLV SHOULD only appear once within an individual ORF
entry. If one ORF entry contains multiple Source PE TLVs, all MUST
be ignored.
The source PE TLV contains the following types:
* IPv4 Source PE TLV: Type = 1, Length = 4 octets, value = next hop
address in IPv4 format.
* IPv6 Source PE TLV: Type = 2, Length = 16 octets, value = next hop
address in IPv6 format (only global IPv6 address).
* Source PE identifier TLV: Type = 3, Length = 4 octets, value = the
value of ORIGINATOR_ID in Source PE Extended Community.
4.2. Source AS TLV
Source AS TLV is defined to identify the source AS number of source
PE. It is only required in inter-domain scenario.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
The Source AS TLV SHOULD only appear once within an individual ORF
entry. If one ORF entry contains multiple Source AS TLVs, it SHOULD
be ignored.
The encoding of Source AS TLV is as follows:
Type = 4, Length = 4 octets, value = the value of Source AS in
Source AS Extended Community as defined in [RFC6514].
4.3. Route Target TLV
Route Target TLV is defined to identify the RT of the overload VPN
routes. RT and RD can be used together to filter VPN routes when the
source VRF contains multiple RTs, and the VPN routes with different
RTs MAY be assigned to different VRFs on the receiver.
If this TLV contains only one RT but multiple RTs are configured on
the VPN route, the device should check whether the RT included in
this TLV exists among the multiple RTs configured on the VPN route.
If it exists, the device should filter out the VPN route.
The Route Target TLV contains the following types:
Type = 5, Length = 8*n (n is the number of RTs that the overload
VPN routes attached) octets, value = the RT of the overload VPN
routes. If multiple RTs are included, there MUST be an exact
match.
5. The general procedures of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism
5.1. Process of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism on sender
The operation of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism on each device is
independent, each of them makes a local judgment to determine whether
it needs to send a VPN Prefix ORF message to its upstream peer.
Operators can configure the algorithms in the devices according to
their own circumstances.
This section describes the procedures for the receiving BGP peer to
receive VPN route information from the sending BGP peer. The VPN
information includes updated VPN routes and their corresponding VPN
instance identification information. Based on the VPN instance
identification information, the receiving BGP peer determines the
newly added VPN routes. It then checks whether the number of newly
added VPN routes has caused the total number of VPN routes to exceed
the maximum route limit for the associated VPN instance.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
If the route limit of the VPN instance, which is identified by the
VPN instance identification information, is reached or exceeded, the
receiving BGP peer will send a VPN Prefix ORF message to the sending
BGP peer, indicating that it should stop sending the corresponding
VPN routes which are identified by the VPN instance identification
information.
Before originating a VPN Prefix ORF message, the device SHOULD
compare the list of RTs carried by VPN routes with those imported by
other VRFs on the device. If the route's RT is included in the
import rules of other VRFs, the VPN Prefix ORF message MUST NOT be
originated.
Before sending a VPN Prefix ORF entry, a sender SHOULD send a
"default" entry to the VPN Prefix ORF receiver, to allow other
allowed VPN prefixes to pass the filter. The "default" entry should
be installed in advance in the VPN Prefixes ORF table, with the
overload VPN routes process method set to 0, sequence set to
0xFFFFFFFF, length set to 8, and Route Distinguisher set to 0.
The receiving BGP peer and the sending BGP peer are iBGP peers within
the same Autonomous System (AS). The VPN instance identification
information is RD and the instruction information is sent using ORF
in the ROUTE-REFRESH message.
The instruction information sent from the receiving BGP peer includes
the following information:
* The ORF entries that are included in the ROUTE-REFRESH message.
* The Action field in the ORF entries is set to a value that
instructs the sending BGP peer to add the corresponding filter
condition to its outbound route filter.
* The Match field in the ORF entries is set to a value that
instructs the sending BGP peer to deny VPN routes updates that
match the corresponding ORF entries.
* The RD value that identifies the above mentioned VPN instance is
added to the type-specific part of the ORF entries.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
When multiple VRFs on a PE are receiving VPN routes with a specific
RD, if one VRF exceeds its limit upon receiving routes with that RD,
then the PE sends a VPN Prefix ORF message, which will prevent other
VRFs that have not exceeded their limits from receiving VPN routes
containing that RD, thereby avoiding any communication disruptions
between these VRFs and the rejected VPN routes. In order to more
finely control VPN routing, when not all VRFs on a PE that are
interested in VPN routes with a specific RD exceed the limit, the PE
MUST NOT send a VPN Prefix ORF entry.
When the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism is triggered, the device SHOULD
send an alarm information to network operators.
The procedures for senders of VPN Prefix ORF entries are described
below:
S01. For each VRF v that receives updated VPN routes {
S02. If (the total number of prefixes in VRF v exceeds its
configured prefix limit) {
S03. RT_set = the set of Route Targets imported by VRF v.
S04. overload_RD_source_pairs = all <RD, Source PE>
tuples from the newly received routes that belong
to VRF v.
// Check if any RT in RT_set is also imported by
another VRF that has NOT exceeded its limit
S05. conflict_exists = FALSE;
S06. For each RT r in RT_set {
S07. For each other VRF u on this device {
S08. If (r is in the import RT list of VRF u)
AND (prefix count of VRF u <= its prefix
limit) {
S09. conflict_exists = TRUE;
S10. }
S11. }
S12. }
S13. If (conflict_exists == TRUE) {
S14. // Cannot send ORF: would block routes needed
by healthy VRFs
S15. Send warning message to the operator.
S16. }
S17. // Safe to send ORF entries
S18. For each <RD_x, PE_y> in overload_RD_source_pairs {
S19. Collect all RTs carried by routes with RD=RD_x
from source PE_y that are imported into
VRF v ? RT_list.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
S20. Construct a VPN Prefix ORF entry with:
S21. Action = ADD,
S22. Match = DENY,
S23. Overload VPN routes process method = 0,
S24. Sequence = generate unique sequence number,
S25. Route Distinguisher = RD_x,
S26. Optional TLVs include:
S27. Source PE TLV = PE_y,
S28. Route Target TLV = RT_list.
S29. Send a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message containing this
ORF entry to the upstream BGP peer (e.g., RR).
S30. Send an alarm message to the operator indicating
VRF v overflow and ORF transmission.
S31. }
S32. } Else {
S33. // No overflow in this VRF; no ORF triggered
S34. Continue normal route processing.
S35. }
S36. }
5.1.1. Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions
For intra-AS VPN deployment, there are two scenarios:
* unique RD (per VPN, per PE).
* the same RD (per VPN, same on all PEs)
The detailed descriptions about the above solutions are in
Appendix B.
5.2. Protocol process of VPN Prefix ORF mechanism on receiver
The VPN Prefix ORF is used mainly to block the unwanted BGP updates.
When the receiver receives VPN Prefix ORF entry, it MUST check first
whether the "Match" bit is "DENY" or not.
If the "Match" bit is "PERMIT", and is the "default" entry (the
overload VPN routes process method equal to 0, sequence equal to
0xFFFFFFFF, length is equal to 8, and Route Distinguisher is equal to
0), the entry SHOULD be installed. Otherwise, if the "Match" bit is
"PERMIT", the entry MUST be discarded and a warning MUST be sent to
the operator.
The following procedures will only be evaluated when the "Match" bit
is "DENY".
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
The receiver of VPN Prefix ORF entries, which may be a RR, ASBR or
PE, when receives VPN Prefix ORF entry from its BGP peer, it does the
following:
S01. The receiver checks the combination of <AFI/SAFI, ORF-Type,
Sequence, Route Distinguisher> of the received VPN Prefix
ORF entry.
S02. If (the combination does not already exist in the ORF-Policy
table) {
S03. The receiver adds the VPN Prefix ORF entry to the
ORF-Policy table.
S04. } else if (Action is ADD) {
S05. Overwrite the old VPN Prefix ORF entry with the new
one.
S06. } else if (Action is REMOVE) {
S07. The corresponding VPN Prefix ORF entries should be
removed from the ORF-Policy table.
S07. } else {
Remove all VPN Prefix ORF entries SHOULD be
removed from the ORF-Policy table.
S08. }
The filtering conditions for the stored VPN Prefix ORF entries
contain the RD and RT of the source PE.
If the SPE EC is not attached to the BGP Update message of the VPN
prefixes, the receiver MUST use NEXT_HOP or ORIGINATOR_ID as the
originator of VPN Prefix to match against the VPN Prefix ORF entry.
After installing the filter entries for the outbound VPN prefixes,
the RR or ASBR does the following before sending VPN routes:
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
S01. RR or ASBR check if there are matching filtering conditions
in the ORF-Policy table for the VPN routes.
S02. If (matching filtering conditions does not exist) {
S03. The RR/ASBR sends the VPN routes.
S04. } else {
S05. If (the "Overload VPN routes process method" bit is set
to 0) {
S06. The RR/ASBR withdraws all the VPN routes identified
by RD, RT and any relevant information in the optional
TLVs within the entry, and stop sending the
corresponding VPN routes to the sender of the VPN
Prefix ORF entry.
S07. } else {
S08. The receiver withdraws the extra VPN routes according
to the value of RD, RT and any relevant information
in optional TLVs within the entry, and stop sending
the corresponding VPN routes to the sender of the
VPN Prefix ORF entry.
S09. }
The procedure above can be used for route refresh processing after
getting the ORF update and the usual VPN route propagation. A change
to the ORF prefixes will trigger a re-scan of the relevant routing
information, followed by a route refresh; in contrast, regular
individual VPN route updates are subject only to matching against the
existing ORF rules.
6. Source PE Extended Community
Next hop does not always identify the source as in the following
scenarios:
* a PE MAY have multiple addresses so that its BGP peer MAY receive
several different next hop addresses from the same source.
* In Option B inter-domain scenario, the ASBR will change the next
hop.
ORIGINATOR_ID is a non-transitive attribute generated by RR to
identify the source, but ORIGINATOR_ID cannot be advertised outside
the local AS. To address the above scenarios, we have defined a new
Extended Community: Source PE Extended Community (SPE EC), which is
designed to transmit the identifier of source. The value of SPE EC
can be set by source PE, RR or Autonomous System Boundary Router
(ASBR). Once set and attached to the BGP UPDATE message, its value
SHOULD NOT be altered along the advertisement path.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
The AS number of source PE can be conveyed by Source AS Extended
Community, as defined in [RFC6514]
The format of SPE EC is shown as Figure 4.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBD) | ORIGINATOR_ID :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ORIGINATOR_ID (cont.) | Reserved :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 The format of SPE EC
Where:
* Type: specifies the type value assigned by IANA, now it is TBD.
* ORIGINATOR_ID: specifies the identifier of source.
* Reserved: MUST be zero on transmit.
For the RR/ASBR, it SHOULD perform the following:
* Check the existence of the SPE EC. If it exists, does not change
it.
* If SPE EC does not exist, check the existence of ORIGINATOR_ID.
If it exists, put it into SPE EC.
* If ORIGINATOR_ID does not exist, put the router-id of source PE
into SPE EC.
This section extends route reflection behaviours, which means if
someone wants this new feature extension, then the RR needs to do
something additional as above.
7. Operational Considerations
7.1. Quota value calculation
The VPN Prefix ORF mechanism is designed for intra-domain BGP/MPLS IP
VPN [RFC4364] and BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] deployments
where multiple VRFs on a Provider Edge (PE) router exchange VPN
routes via a single shared iBGP session (typically with a Route
Reflector).
This mechanism operates in two modes:
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
* Basic mode: Triggered solely by VRF-level prefix limits. No per-
source quota configuration is required. In this mode, the PE
sends a VPN Prefix ORF only when all VRFs that import the same
Route Target(s) have exceeded their respective prefix limits.
* Granular mode (optional): Enabled when operators configure
per-<Route Distinguisher, Source PE> quotas via their Network
Management System (NMS) or CLI. This allows finer-grained
control, enabling ORF triggering even if only one VRF exceeds its
limit while others sharing the same RT remain healthy—provided the
offending routes originate from a specific source.
Quota is a threshold to limit the number of VPN routes under specific
granularities (such as <PE>, <RD, Source AS>). In deployment, quota
values SHOULD be set and delivered by the Network Management System
(NMS).
When the granular mode is enabled, an operator may configure a quota
for each <RD, Source PE> tuple imported into a VRF. This quota
represents the maximum number of prefixes allowed from that specific
source for the given RD.
The quota value can be derived based on historical traffic patterns,
service level agreements (SLAs), or static provisioning via NMS/CLI.
It is not a prerequisite for the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism to operate;
the mechanism defaults to VRF-level prefix limit enforcement if no
per-source quotas are configured.
If the quota value is set to (VRF prefix limit/the number of PEs),
whenever a new PE access to the network, the quota value SHOULD be
re-evaluated or adjusted accordingly.
To avoid frequent changes to the quota value, the value SHOULD be set
based on the following formula:
Quota=MIN[(Margins coefficient)*<PE,CE limit>*<Number of PEs within
the VPN, includes the possibility expansion in futures>, VRF Prefixes
Limit]
It SHOULD be noted that the above formula is only an example, the
operators can use different formulas based on actual needs in
management plane.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
7.2. Withdraw of VPN Prefix ORF entries
When the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism is triggered, a warning message
will be generated and sent to the network operators. Operators
SHOULD manually configure the network to resume normal operation.
Since devices can record the VPN Prefix ORF entries sent by each VRF,
operators can identify the entries that need to be withdrawn and
manually trigger the withdraw process.
The withdrawal of the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism is manually triggered,
and its activation requires two conditions:
1. Network operation and maintenance personnel have confirmed
through device alarms that the issue of "overload routes", which
originally caused the VRF route count to exceed the limit --- has
been resolved;
2. Operation and maintenance personnel have located the target ORF
entry to be withdrawn. Devices record the VPN Prefix ORF entries
sent by each VRF, providing a basis for personnel to locate the
target of the withdrawal.
Operation and maintenance personnel manually configure withdrawal
commands on the device that triggered the ORF (typically the original
ORF sender, such as a PE with an exceeded route limit). The commands
MUST include the unique identification information of the target ORF
entry, and set the "Action" field of the ORF entry to "REMOVE" (for
removing a single entry) or "REMOVE-ALL" (for removing all entries of
the same type).
The withdrawal of ORF entries relies on manual intervention from a
management entity (e.g., NMS), and there is no automatic withdrawal
mechanism. This is to prevent route disruptions caused by
misoperations.
8. Security Considerations
This draft adds no new security considerations beyond those of
[RFC5291].
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. VPN Prefix Outbound Route Filter
This document defines a new Outbound Route Filter type - VPN Prefix
Outbound Route Filter (VPN Prefix ORF). This new ORF type SHOULD be
registered under "BGP Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) Types", value 66
has been allocated to this new ORF type by IANA.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
under "BGP Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) Types"
Registry: "VPN Prefix Outbound Route Filter (VPN Prefix ORF)"
Registration Procedure(s): First Come, First Served
9.2. VPN Prefix ORF TLV types
This document define a VPN Prefix ORF TLV type under "Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) Parameters", four TLV types are defined:
under "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters"
Registry: "VPN Prefix ORF TLV"
+==========+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+====================================+
| 0-127 | IETF Review |
+----------+-------------------------+
| 128-255 | First Come First Served |
+----------+-------------------------+
+=====================+=============+===========================+
| Registry | Type | Meaning |
+=====================+=============+===========================+
|Reserved | 0(suggested)|Reserved |
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
|IPv4 Source PE TLV | 1(suggested)|IPv4 address for source PE.|
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
|IPv6 Source PE TLV | 2(suggested)|IPv6 address for source PE.|
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
|Source PE Identifier | 3(suggested)|ORIGINATOR_ID in Source PE |
|TLV | |Extended Community for |
| | |source PE |
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
|Source AS TLV | 4(suggested)|Source AS for source PE |
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
|Route Target TLV | 5(suggested)|Route Target of the |
| | |overload VPN routes |
+---------------------+-------------+---------------------------+
9.3. Source PE Extended Community
This document also requests a new Transitive Extended Community Type.
The new Transitive Extended Community Type name SHALL be "Source PE
Extended Community".
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
Under "BGP Transitive Extended Community Types:"
Registry: "Source PE Extended Community" type
0x0d(suggested) Source PE Extended Community
9.4. Commen part of ORF entry
This document defines the encoding of the common part of ORF entries
as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| A |M|O|R|R|R|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A (2 bits): specifies the Action of this entry.
M (1 bit): specifies the Match method of this entry.
O (1 bit): specifies the overload VPN routes process method.
R (4 bits): reserved.
10. Contributor
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
Beijing, 100095 China
11. Acknowledgement
Thanks Jeffrey Haas, Robert Raszuk, Jim Uttaro, Jakob Heitz, Jeff
Tantsura, Rajiv Asati, John E Drake, Gert Doering, Shuanglong Chen,
Enke Chen, Srihari Sangli and Igor Malyushkin for their valuable
comments on this draft.
12. Normative References
[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>.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease
Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486,
April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4486>.
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering
Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, DOI 10.17487/RFC5291,
August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5291>.
[RFC5292] Chen, E. and S. Sangli, "Address-Prefix-Based Outbound
Route Filter for BGP-4", RFC 5292, DOI 10.17487/RFC5292,
August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5292>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7024] Jeng, H., Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Decraene, B., Rekhter,
Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS
VPNs", RFC 7024, DOI 10.17487/RFC7024, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7024>.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
[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>.
[RFC7543] Jeng, H., Jalil, L., Bonica, R., Patel, K., and L. Yong,
"Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4",
RFC 7543, DOI 10.17487/RFC7543, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7543>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Experimental topology
The experimental topology is shown in Figure 6.
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | PE1 | | | | PE3 | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| \ | | / |
| \+---------+ EBGP +---------+/ |
| | | | | |
| | ASBR1 |-----------| ASBR2 | |
| | | | | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| / | | \ |
| +---------+/ | | \+---------+ |
| | PE2 | | | | PE4 | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | |
| AS1 | | AS2 |
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
Figure 6 The experimental topology
This topology can be used to verify as follows:
* whether the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism could block the overload
routes in intra-domain scenario.
* whether the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism conflicts with the existing
mechanism and cause failure.
* whether the quota value leads to flapping.
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
Since all existing standards defining new ORF types are under the
standard track, the authors of this draft would like to inquire
whether this document can be reclassified into the standard track.
Appendix B. Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions
B.1. Scenario 1: unique RD (per VPN, per PE)
In this scenario, PE1-PE4 and RR are iBGP peers. RD is allocated per
VPN per PE. The overload VPN routes only carry one RT. We assume
that the network topology is shown in Figure 1.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| | PE1 +----------------+ +-----------------+ PE4 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| VPN1(RD11,RT1) | | VPN2(RD12,RT2) |
| VPN2(RD12,RT2) | | |
| +-+----+-+ |
| | RR | |
| +-+----+-+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | PE2 +----------------+ +-----------------+ PE3 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| VPN1(RD21,RT1) VPN1(RD31,RT1) |
| VPN2(RD22,RT2,RT1) VPN2(RD32,RT2) |
| |
| AS 100 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 Network Topology of Scenario 1
When PE3 sends an excessive number of VPN routes with RT1, and both
PE1 and PE2 import VPN routes with RT1, the process of overload VPN
routes will influence performance of VRFs on PEs. PEs and RR need to
have appropriate mechanisms to identify and control the advertising
of offending VPN routes.
a) PE1
If quota value is not set on PE1, and each VRF has a prefix limit on
PE1. When the PE1 receives VPN routes from its BGP peer, it does the
following:
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
S01. If (the prefix limit for VPN1 VRF is exceeded){
S02. PE1 sends a VPN Prefix ORF message to the
RR and a warning message to the operator.
The VPN Prefix ORF message will carry the
RD is set to RD31, the RT value is set to
RT1, the source PE is PE3. RR handles the
offending VPN routes and controls the
number of VPN routes according to the
value of "Offending VPN routes process
method".
S03. } else {
S04. PE1 cannot trigger the VPN Prefix
ORF mechanism, and only performs VPN
route filtering for the target VRF.
S05. }
NOTE: When the prefix limit for VPN1 VRF is exceeded, there are no
other VRFs on PE1 that need the VPN routes with RT1. PE1 sends a VPN
Prefix ORF message to the RR and a warning message to the operator.
If each <RD31, source PE3> tuple imported into a VRF has a quota, and
each VRF has a prefix limit. When the PE1 receives VPN routes from
its BGP peer, it does the following:
S01. If (VPN routes associated with <RD31, PE3>
tuple exceed the quota) {
S02. If (the prefix limit of VPN1 VRF is not
exceeded) {
S03. PE1 sends a warning message to the
operator, and the VPN Prefix ORF
mechanism cannot be triggered.
S04. } else {
S05. PE1 generates a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH
message containing a VPN Prefix ORF
entry with (RD31, source PE is PE3,
RT is RT1), and send the entry to RR.
RR handles the overload VPN routes
according to the value of "Overload
VPN routes process method".
S06. }
S07. }
b) PE2
If quota value is not set on PE2, and each VRF has a prefix limit on
PE2. When the PE2 receives VPN routes from its BGP peer, it does the
following:
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
S01. If (the prefix limit for VPN1 VRF is exceeded) {
S02. If (the prefix limit for VPN2 VRF is exceeded) {
S03. PE2 sends a VPN Prefix ORF message to the RR and a
warning message to the operator. The VPN Prefix ORF
message will indicate the RD set to RD31, the RT
value set to RT1. RR handles the overload VPN routes
and controls the number of VPN routes according to
the value of "Overload VPN routes process method".
S04. } else {
S05. PE2 cannot trigger the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism,
and only performs VPN route filtering for the target
VRF.
S06. }
S07. }
NOTE: PE2 cannot directly trigger the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism when
the prefix limit of VPN1 VRF is exceeded, because VPN2 VRF requires
the VPN routes with RT1. PE2 triggers the mechanism only when the
prefix limits for both the VPN1 and VPN2 VRFs have been exceeded.
If each <RD31, source PE3> tuple imported into a VRF has a quota, and
each VRF has a prefix limit. When the PE2 receives VPN routes from
its BGP peer, it does the following:
S01. If (VPN routes associated with <RD31, PE3> tuple exceed the
quota) {
S02. If (the prefix limit of VPN1 VRF is not exceeded) {
S03. PE2 sends a warning message to the operator, and the
VPN Prefix ORF mechanism cannot be triggered.
S04. } else {
S05. If (the prefix limit of VPN2 VRF is not exceeded) {
S06. PE2 cannot trigger the VPN Prefix ORF
mechanism, and only performs VPN route filtering
for the target VPN1 VRF, stopping the import of
VPN routes with <RD31, PE3>.
S07. } else {
S08. PE2 generates a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message
containing a VPN Prefix ORF entry with (RD31,
source PE is PE3, RTs are RT1 and RT2), and send
the entry to RR. RR handles the overload VPN
routes according to the value of "Overload VPN
routes process method".
S09. }
S10. }
S11. }
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
B.2. Scenario 2: the same RD (per VPN, same on all PEs)
In this scenario, PE1-PE4 and RR are iBGP peers. RD is allocated per
VPN. One/Multiple RTs are associated with the offending VPN routes
and are imported into different VRFs on other devices. We assume the
network topology is shown in Figure 2.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| | PE1 +----------------+ +-----------------+ PE4 | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| VPN1(RD1,RT1) | | VPN2(RD12,RT2) |
| VPN2(RD12,RT2) | | |
| +-+----+-+ |
| | RR | |
| +-+----+-+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | PE2 +----------------+ +-----------------+ PE3 | |
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| VPN1(RD1,RT1) VPN1(RD1,RT1,RT2) |
| VPN2(RD32,RT2) |
| |
| AS 100 |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Network Topology of Scenario 2
When PE3 sends an excessive number of VPN routes associated with RD1,
RT1 and RT2, and both PE1 and PE2 import VPN routes with RT1, the
process of overload VPN routes can affect the performance of the VRFs
on PEs.
a) PE1
If quota value is not set on PE1, and each VRF has a prefix limit on
PE1. Since VPN2 VRF requires the VPN routes with RT2, PE1 cannot
trigger VPN Prefix ORF mechanism directly when the prefix limit of
VPN1 VRF is exceeded. This case is similar to PE2 without quota in
Scenario 1, which is modified as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
S03. PE1 sends a VPN Prefix ORF message to the RR and a
warning message to the operator. The VPN Prefix ORF
message will indicate the RD set to RD1, the RT
value set to RT1 and RT2, source PE identified as
PE3. RR handles the offending VPN routes and
controls the number of VPN routes according to the
value of "Overload VPN routes process method".
If each <RD1, source PE3> tuple imported into a VRF has a quota, and
each VRF has a prefix limit. This case is similar to PE2 with quota
in Scenario 1, which is modified as follows:
S08. PE1 generates a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message
containing a VPN Prefix ORF entry with (RD1,
source PE is PE3, RTs are RT1 and RT2), and send
the entry to RR. RR handles the overload VPN
routes according to the value of "Overload VPN
routes process method".
b) PE2
If quota value is not set on PE2, and each VRF has a prefix limit on
PE2. Since only VPN1 VRF needs to import VPN routes with RT1, this
case is similar to PE1 without quota in Scenario 1, which is modified
as follows:
S02. PE2 sends a VPN Prefix ORF message to the RR and a
warning message to the operator. The VPN Prefix ORF
message will indicate the RD set to RD1, the RT value
set to RT1 and RT2, source PE identified as PE3. RR
handles the offending VPN routes and controls the number
of VPN routes according to the value of "Overload VPN
routes process method".
If each <RD31, source PE3> tuple imported into a VRF has a quota, and
each VRF has a prefix limit. This case is similar to PE1 with quota
in Scenario 1, which is modified as follows:
S05. PE2 generates a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message containing
a VPN Prefix ORF entry with (RD1, source PE is PE3,
RTs are RT1 and RT2), and send the entry to RR. RR
handles the offending VPN routes according to the
value of "Overload VPN routes process method".
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
Appendix C. Applicability
Using the scenario 1 in Appendix B, we demonstrate how to determine
each field when the sender generates a VPN Prefix ORF entry.
Assuming it is an IPv4 network, after PE1-PE4 and RR have advertised
the Outbound Route Filtering Capability, each of PE1-PE4 needs to
send a VPN Prefix ORF entry that means "PERMIT-ALL" as follows:
* AFI is equal to IPv4
* SAFI is equal to MPLS-labeled VPN address
* When-to-refresh is equal to IMMEDIATE
* ORF Type is equal to VPN Prefix ORF
* Length of ORF entries is equal to 22
* Action is equal to ADD
* Match is equal to PERMIT
* Overload VPN routes process method is equal to 0
* Sequence is equal to 0xFFFFFFFF
* Length is equal to 8
* Route Distinguisher is equal to 0
When the VPN Prefix ORF mechanism is triggered on PE1, PE1 generates
a VPN Prefix ORF entry contains the following information:
* AFI is equal to IPv4
* SAFI is equal to MPLS-labeled VPN address
* When-to-refresh is equal to IMMEDIATE
* ORF Type is equal to VPN Prefix ORF
* Length of ORF entries is equal to 45
* Action is equal to ADD
* Match is equal to DENY
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
* Overload VPN routes process method is equal to 0
* Sequence is equal to 1
* Length is equal to 31
* Route Distinguisher is equal to RD31
* Optional TLV:
- Type is equal to 1 (Source PE TLV)
- Length is equal to 4
- value is equal to PE3's IPv4 address
- Type is equal to 4 (Source AS TLV)
- Length is equal to 4
- value is equal to PE3's source AS number
- Type is equal to 5 (Route Target TLV)
- Length is equal to 8
- value is equal to RT1
Authors' Addresses
Wei Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
Beijing, 102209
China
Email: weiwang94@foxmail.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
Beijing, 102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RD-ORF December 2025
Haibo Wang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
Beijing, 100095
China
Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
Beijing, 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires 27 June 2026 [Page 30]