Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Services Gateway Solution
draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-02
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 | Jorge Rabadan , Senthil Sathappan , Vinod Prabhu , Wen Lin , Patrice Brissette | ||
| Last updated | 2023-04-19 (Latest revision 2022-10-10) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-02
BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Sathappan
Intended status: Standards Track V. Prabhu
Expires: 21 October 2023 Nokia
W. Lin
Juniper
P. Brissette
Cisco Systems
19 April 2023
Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Services Gateway Solution
draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-02
Abstract
Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Services (EVPN VPWS) need to be
deployed in high scale multi-domain networks, where each domain can
use a different transport technology, such as MPLS, VXLAN or Segment
Routing with MPLS or IPv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs). While
transport interworking solutions on border routers spare the border
routers from having to process service routes, they do not always
meet the multi-homing, redundancy, and operational requirements, or
provide the isolation that each domain requires. This document
analyzes the scenarios in which an interconnect solution for EVPN
VPWS using EVPN Domain Gateways is needed, and adds the required
extensions to support it.
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 21 October 2023.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. EVPN Interconnect Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. When is the Service Interworking Solution Required for EVPN
VPWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Service Gateway Extensions for EVPN VPWS . . . . . . . . 9
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Service Interworking procedures for EVPN VPWS . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Redistribution of EVPN Routes Across Domains . . . . . . 10
3.2. EVPN Domain Anycast Gateways for redundancy . . . . . . . 12
3.3. EVPN Multi-Homing for Domain Gateway Redundancy (I-ES) . 14
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Ethernet VPN Virtual Private Wire Services (EVPN VPWS) [RFC8214] need
to be deployed in high scale multi-domain networks, where each domain
can use a different transport technology, such as MPLS, VXLAN or
Segment Routing with MPLS or IPv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs). While
the so-call transport interworking solutions on border routers spare
the border routers from having to process service routes, they do not
always meet the multi-homing, redundancy, and operational
requirements, or provide the isolation that each domain requires.
This document analyzes the scenarios in which an interconnect
solution for EVPN VPWS using EVPN Domain Gateways is needed, and adds
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
the required extensions to support it.
1.1. Terminology
This section summarizes the terminology that is used throughout the
rest of the document.
* BR: Border Router, router that provides connectivity between
domains, typically an Area Border Router (ABR) or Autonomous
System Border Router (ASBR).
* I-PE: Ingress Provider Edge router
* E-PE: Egress Provider Edge router
* ES and ESI: Ethernet Segment and Ethernet Segment Identifier, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis].
* I-ES and I-ESI: Interconnect Ethernet Segment and Interconnect
Ethernet Segment Identifier. An I-ES is defined for multihoming
to the domains to which a Service Gateway is attached [RFC9014].
* NVO: Network Virtualization Overlay.
* EVPN Domain and EVPN Domain Gateway: two PEs are in the same EVPN
Domain if they are attached to the same service and the packets
between them do not require a data path lookup of the inner frame
in any intermediate router. An EVPN Domain is typically a group
of PE, P and Border Routers that belong to the same IGP instance
or BGP domain. EVPN services are instantiated on the PEs and
Border Routers, which are referred to as EVPN Domain Gateways in
this document. An EVPN Domain Gateway connects two or more EVPN
Domains and is configured with multiple Domain identifiers (EVPN
Domain-ID) in the VPWS that connects those EVPN Domains. Each
EVPN Domain-ID representing an EVPN Domain. Another definition of
EVPN Domain Gateway is a Border Router that implements the Service
Interworking procedures described in this document.
* Domain: in this document Domain and EVPN Domain are used
interchangeably.
1.2. EVPN Interconnect Options
This section describes the EVPN [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis] high level
interconnect options and discusses their applicability to EVPN VPWS.
1. Service Interworking solution:
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
A-D per EVI A-D per EVI A-D per EVI
RD2 tag2 L22 RD3 tag3 SID33 RD4 tag4 vni44
<------------+ <--------------+ <-------------+
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| | | | | |
I-PE BR-1 BR-2 E-PE
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|+-----+| |+-----+| |+-----+| |+-----+|
CE1--||VPWS1|| ||VPWS1|| ||VPWS1|| ||VPWS1||-->CE2
|+-----+| |+-----+| |+-----+| |+-----+|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 | | VXLAN |
+------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
<------------> <--------------> <-------------->
Domain-1 Domain-2 Domain-3
Figure 1: Service Interworking Interconnect
[RFC9014] section 4 describes an end-to-end EVPN interconnect
solution using EVPN Domain Gateways, or simply Gateways. The
Gateways provide connectivity across EVPN Domains, where those
Domains can use MPLS tunnels, overlay tunnels (e.g., VXLAN) or
Segment Routing tunnels. Procedures are extrapolated to SRv6
domains too. The Gateways provide independence in terms of the
Route Targets and Route Distinguishers used in each Domain, or
the type of multicast tree used for BUM traffic in each domain,
while keeping the key EVPN properties end-to-end, such as MAC
mobility, MAC protection or ARP suppression. The Gateways also
provide all-active and single-active multi-homing redundancy by
extending the concept of the multi-homing Ethernet Segment for
interconnect domains (I-ES). In this document, we refer to this
solution as the Service Interworking option, and the Border
Routers play the role of EVPN Domain Gateways. Since [RFC9014]
section 4 only describes the solution for EVPN multi-point
services, this document extends the procedures to support EVPN
VPWS services with the required extensions. Figure 1 illustrates
the Service Interworking solution across domains of different
transport encapsulations when applied to EVPN VPWS services.
2. Inter-domain Option-B solution:
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
NHSelf NHSelf A-D per EVI
L22<-L33 L33<-L44 RD4 tag4 L44
<------------+ <--------------+ <-------------+
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| | | | | |
I-PE BR-1 BR-2 E-PE
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|+-----+| | | | | |+-----+|
CE1--||VPWS1|| | | | | ||VPWS1||-->CE2
|+-----+| | | | | |+-----+|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| SR-MPLS | | SR-MPLS | | SR-MPLS |
+------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
<------------> <--------------> <-------------->
Domain-1 Domain-2 Domain-3
Figure 2: Inter-domain Option-B
[RFC8365] section 10 provides an alternative interconnect
solution for EVPN services by using Border Routers that re-write
the EVPN BGP next-hops and program a swap operation of the VNIs
or MPLS labels (depending on whether the encapsulation is NVO-
based or MPLS-based). This solution does not require the
instantiation of Services on the Border Routers that perform a
lookup on the inner destination MAC (as in the case of
[RFC9014]), however the solution is limited to the interconnect
of domains of the same encapsulation. In addition, the solution
does not support per-ES mass withdraw of the EVPN MAC/IP
Advertisement routes, as described in [RFC8365]. In this
document we refer to this solution as Inter-domain Option-B.
Figure 2 illustrates this model when applied to EVPN VPWS, where
the three domains are all now of the same encapsulation, and
there is no service instantiation on the Border Routers.
3. Transport Interworking solution:
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
A-D per EVI
RD4 tag4 L44
<---------------------------------------------+
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| | | | | |
I-PE BR-1 BR-2 E-PE
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|+-----+| |Transp | |Transp | |+-----+|
CE1--||VPWS1|| |IW | |IW | ||VPWS1||-->CE2
|+-----+| | | | | |+-----+|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 | | SR-MPLS |
+------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
<------------> <--------------> <-------------->
Domain-1 Domain-2 Domain-3
Figure 3: Transport Interworking option
Other proposals are currently being investigated, in the context
of SRv6 to MPLS interworking, e.g.,
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]. In these solutions,
the Border Routers do not change the EVPN BGP next-hops, or
process EVPN routes for that matter. The Border Routers provide
stitching between MPLS and SRv6 tunnels. In this case, the
solution allows the interconnect of domains of different
encapsulation, as long as the ingress and egress PEs support the
same encapsulation. A variation of this solution is the Inter-
domain Option-C solution, where a BGP LU (Label Unicast) tunnel
provides the stitching across the domains, as long as all the
domains use the same encapsulation. In this document, we refer
to this solution as Transport Interworking option. Figure 3
illustrates this model when applied to EVPN VPWS, where I-PE and
E-PE are attached to domains of the same encapsulation.
Intermediate domains, e.g., Domain-2, can be of encapsulations
different from the ones used at the ingress and egress Domains.
The EVPN route is not processed or changed by the Border Routers.
1.3. When is the Service Interworking Solution Required for EVPN VPWS
The three interconnect solutions described in Section 1.2 are valid,
however, this section describes the requirements that make the
Service Interworking solution needed. Those requirements are:
a. Per-domain EVPN Multi-Homing
The Service Interworking solution allows the use of different
Ethernet Segment Identifiers (ESI) per domain, as well as the
implementation of the aliasing and backup procedures on a per-
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
domain basis. The use of different ESIs per domain may help
guarantee the uniqueness of the ESI when different domains
independently managed and operated are interconnected. The
implementation of independent aliasing and backup procedures per
domain, spares the need for propagation of the EVPN A-D per ES
routes by the Border Routers (which are EVPN Domain Gateways in
the Service Interworking solution). These A-D per ES routes are
consumed within the domain, which results in a significant
reduction of the number of routes that the ingress PEs need to
process. Another consequence of the processing of A-D per ES
routes per domain, is a faster convergence in case of ES PE or
link failure, since A-D per ES routes are no longer propagated by
all the Border Routers along the domains, but processed by the
Border Routers of the originating domain. Per-domain EVPN Multi-
Homing procedures are not possible in the Inter-domain Option-B
or Transport Interworking solutions.
b. Per-ES Mass Withdrawal
In order to benefit from the per-ES mass withdrawal property of
EVPN Multi-Homing, the received BGP next-hops of the selected
EVPN A-D per EVI and A-D per ES routes need to match on a PE.
This cannot be guaranteed in an Inter-domain Option-B solution,
as described in [RFC8365] section 10.2.2., however it is always
the case in the Service Interworking or Transport Interworking
solution.
c. Per-domain Route Distinguishers (RDs) and Route Targets (RTs)
In case of merge of domains coming from different administrative
entities, the uniqueness of RDs and RTs across domains for the
same service is not guaranteed. Hence the re-write of RD/RTs at
the Border Routers may be required. If that is the case, the
Service Interworking solution provides the support for re-writing
RD/RTs. The Inter-domain Option-B may allow re-writing RD/RTs,
however, it is not considered a common practice. The Transport
Interworking solution does not support the translation of RD/RTs.
d. Ethernet Tag IDs per domain
Similar to per-domain RDs and RTs, re-writing of Ethernet Tag IDs
used in the A-D per EVI routes may be needed in case of
interconnect of domains that belong to different administrative
entities. This can be only supported by a Service Interworking
solution.
e. Control Word, Flow Label and MTU (Maximum Transfer Unit)
signaling per domain
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
As described in [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis], the use of Control
Word and Flow Label, as well as the MTU are signaled in the EVPN
Layer 2 Attributes extended community along with the A-D per EVI
routes. The signaling and use of Control Word is recommended in
those domains where P routers can get confused when hashing based
on the tunneled EVPN packet payload, but the Control Word may not
be needed in some domains. Similarly, the Flow Label introduces
an additional level of entropy in EVPN encapsulated packets, that
may be needed in some domains but adding unnecessary extra
overhead in other domains. Different MTUs may be supported in
different domains, due to the domains running on different
physical media. A Service Interworking model allows the
signaling and use of Control Word, Flow Label, and Layer-2 MTU on
a per domain basis. This is not the case in the other two models
analyzed in this document.
f. Heterogeneous Encapsulations
Interconnecting domains that use different encapsulations (e.g.,
VXLAN, SRv6, MPLS, SR-MPLS, etc.) is a common requirement. This
becomes important in case the domains have different platform
features, or migrations to new encapsulations or transport types
are needed. In the Service Interworking model the EVPN routes
are generated and consumed at every Border Router (which is an
EVPN Domain Gateway), hence the encapsulation indicated along
with the route can be advertised independently at each Border
Router. That is not the case in the models 2 and 3 in
Section 1.2. The Inter-domain Option-B model requires the same
encapsulation in each of the domains the Border Router connects,
whereas the Transport Interworking model requires that at least
the ingress and egress domains have the same encapsulation.
g. Per-domain EVPN Service OAM
[RFC9062] defines the Service OAM requirements for EVPN services.
When applied to the Interconnect solutions, the three solutions
in Section 1.2 allow for the use of MEPs and MIPs on the ingress
and egress PEs, but only the Service Interworking solution
supports MEPs and MIPs on the Border Routers. In other words,
per-domain EVPN Service OAM is only supported in the Service
Interworking option.
The above requirements and their support across the Interconnect
solutions are summarized in Table 1.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
+======================+==============+==============+==============+
| Requirement | Service | Inter-domain | Transport |
| | Interworking | Option-B | Interworking |
+======================+==============+==============+==============+
| Per-domain | Yes | No | No |
| EVPN Multi- | | | |
| Homing | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Per-ES Mass | Yes | No | Yes |
| Withdrawal | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Per-domain RD/ | Yes | Yes* | No |
| RTs | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Ethernet Tag | Yes | No | No |
| IDs per domain | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Control Word, | Yes | No | No |
| Flow Label and | | | |
| MTU signaling | | | |
| per domain | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Heterogeneous | Yes | No | Yes** |
| encapsulations | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Per-domain | Yes | No | No |
| EVPN Service | | | |
| OAM | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
Table 1: EVPN VPWS Interconnect Options Comparison
* Although possible, it is unusual to re-write RD/RTs in the Inter-
domain Option-B solution
** Supported only when the ingress and egress domains are of the same
encapsulation
1.4. Service Gateway Extensions for EVPN VPWS
The rest of the document specifies the extensions required for the
EVPN Domain Gateways to implement the Service Interworking solution
to deploy end-to-end EVPN VPWS services. In a nutshell, the AD per
EVI routes advertised by I-PE and E-PE are redistributed across
domains, while ES and A-D per ES routes advertised by these PEs are
not redistributed by the EVPN Domain Gateways. In addition, this
document defines how Gateway redundancy works using either an Anycast
Gateway solution, or by extending the I-ES concept already defined
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
for multi-point EVPN services in [RFC9014].
2. Conventions used in this document
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.
3. Service Interworking procedures for EVPN VPWS
This section describes the EVPN VPWS extensions on the EVPN Domain
Gateways (or simply Gateways) to support the Service Interworking
model. An EVPN Domain Gateway in this context is a Border Router
that connects EVPN Domains and implements the Service Interworking
model of Section 1.2. Section 3.1 specifies the Gateway rules to
redistribute EVPN routes. When redundant Gateways attached to two or
more EVPN Domains are deployed, there are two redundancy mechanisms
that can be used. Section 3.2 describes a redundancy method that we
refer to as "Anycast" and is based on the redundant Gateways behaving
as a single system for the remote PEs. Section 3.3 describes the
redundancy based on I-ES, as an extension of the I-ES procedures
specified in [RFC9014], only for EVPN VPWS services. The Anycast
redundancy does not require the use of I-ES and supports single-
active multi-homing connectivity, but it will not support all-active,
aliasing, backup, or mass withdraw features that are supported along
with the use of I-ES and EVPN Multi-Homing.
3.1. Redistribution of EVPN Routes Across Domains
The EVPN Domain Gateways MUST establish separate BGP sessions for
sending/receiving EVPN routes to/from each different Domain to which
they are attached. We refer to redistribution of an EVPN route to
all the procedures in the Gateway that involve the reception and
process of the source domain EVPN route, the programming of the
forwarding path for the route, and the readvertisement of the route
to a different domain (the next destination domain).
The reception and processing of EVPN routes for an EVPN VPWS service
follows [RFC8214]. If the D-PATH attribute is contained in the EVPN
A-D per EVI route, loop detection and best path selection follows
[I-D.sr-bess-evpn-dpath]. The Gateway imports the valid best EVPN
A-D per EVI route required for an Ethernet Tag ID based on the import
Route Target. If a non-zero ESI is included in the route, the
[RFC8214] procedures for aliasing, backup, and mass withdraw are
followed on the Gateway.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
If an A-D per EVI route for a service is successfully imported and
processed, forwarding state is programmed in the data path using the
MPLS label, VNI or SRv6 SID that was received in the EVPN A-D per EVI
route. In addition, depending on the encapsulation of the route's
next destination domain, the router allocates a new MPLS label, VNI
or SRv6 SID and programs a data path switching operation between the
identifiers of the source and next destination domains. Immediately
after, the Gateway re-advertises the route to the BGP speaker in the
next domain. We refer to the source domain as the domain from which
the Gateway receives the route, and the next domain as the EVPN
Domain in which the Gateway redistributes the route. The following
considerations apply to the redistributed EVPN A-D per EVI routes:
a. The redistributed A-D per EVI route MUST carry a different RD
than the source A-D per EVI route did. This ensures that, in
case of redundant Gateways, there is full path visibility in the
next domain where the route is advertised.
b. The redistributed route MAY carry the same set of Route Targets
as the source route did, if the source and next destination
domains use different encapsulations, however translation or re-
write of Route Targets SHOULD be supported in this case. In case
the source and next destination domains use the same
encapsulation, the Gateway MUST use either different import Route
Targets in the two domains, or use different Ethernet Tag IDs to
create forwarding state in the two domains. This ensures the
Gateway does not loop packets back to the source domain and the
redistributed routes are not leaked back to the source domain.
c. The ESI of the redistributed route MUST be set to zero or the
value of the I-ESI defined in the Gateway (if any).
d. The Ethernet Tag ID of the redistributed route MAY have the same
value as the source route. Translation of the Ethernet Tag IDs
SHOULD be supported though.
e. The EVPN Layer 2 Attributes extended community is regenerated for
the redistributed route. The value of the P and B flags are set
based on the Gateway's I-ES and MUST NOT be propagated from the
source route. The Control Word, Flow Label flags, as well as the
MTU, MAY be set to different values from the source A-D route.
The M and V flags [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc] of the
redistributed route MUST be copied from the M and V flag values
of the source route.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
f. The encapsulation specific attributes of the redistributed route
are regenerated based on the encapsulation of the next domain.
That includes the encoding of the A-D per EVI route NLRI as
specified in [RFC8214] or [RFC8365], or the addition of the SRv6
Services TLV as in [RFC9252].
g. The redistributed route should carry the Communities, Extended
Communities and Large Communities of the source route, except for
Route Targets (which are reoriginated), EVPN Extended Communities
and BGP Encapsulation Extended Communities [RFC9012]. EVPN
Extended Communities and BGP Encapsulation Extended Communities
MUST NOT be propagated across domains.
h. The redistributed A-D per EVI route MUST update the D-PATH
attribute of the received route, or add the D-PATH attribute if
the received route did not contain a D-PATH
[I-D.sr-bess-evpn-dpath].
EVPN VPWS services also make use of multi-homing routes, that is,
EVPN A-D per ES routes and Ethernet Segment routes. These multi-
homing routes are processed in the Gateway as in [RFC8214]. The A-D
per ES and Ethernet Segment routes are only processed in the context
of the domain they are received, and they MUST NOT be redistributed
to any other domain. A-D per ES and Ethernet Segment routes may be
originated at the Gateway though, if the Gateway is attached to an
I-ES, as described in Section 3.3.
The procedures on the EVPN Domain Gateways described in this document
are compatible with PEs that implement either the default Flexible
Crossconnect (FXC) mode or the VLAN-Signaled Flexible Crossconnect
mode described in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc].
3.2. EVPN Domain Anycast Gateways for redundancy
The Anycast Service Gateway redundancy is specified as follows:
a. All the Anycast Gateways attached to the same two domains MUST
redistribute the EVPN A-D per EVI routes between domains as per
Section 3.1 with the following considerations:
* No I-ES is used on the Gateways, therefore the ESI value MUST
be set to zero when redistributing EVPN A-D per EVI routes.
* All the redundant Gateways may set the same (or different)
Ethernet Tag ID in the redistributed A-D per EVI route.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
b. All Anycast Gateways MUST process the received D-PATH attribute
and update the D-PATH (with the source domain-id) when
redistributing the A-D per EVI route to the next domain. The
D-PATH attribute will avoid control plane loops.
As an illustration of this redundancy method, suppose all four
Service Gateways in Figure 4 are configured as Anycast Service
Gateways, and local and remote Ethernet Tag IDs are configured as 1,
2 and 3 on all routers in the domains 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
A-D per EVI A-D per EVI
RD11 tag1 L111 RD21 tag2 SID21
<------------+ <--------------+
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| Domain-1 | | Domain-2 | | Domain-3 |
| BR-11 BR-21 A-D per EVI
| +-------+ +-------+ RD4 tag3 vni33
| |+-----+| |+-----+| <---------+
I-PE +--> ||VPWS1||-----> ||VPWS1||--+ E-PE
+-------+ | |+-----+| |+-----+| | +-------+
|+-----+|--+ +-------+ +-------+ | |+-----+|
CE1--||VPWS1|| | | | | +--> ||VPWS1||-->CE2
|+-----+| BR-12 BR-22 |+-----+|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| |+-----+| |+-----+| |
| ||VPWS1|| ||VPWS1|| |
| |+-----+| |+-----+| |
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 | | VXLAN |
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
A-D per EVI A-D per EVI
RD12 tag1 L121 RD22 tag2 SID22
<------------+ <--------------+
Figure 4: Anycast Redundancy
In the example in Figure 4 E-PE advertises an EVPN A-D per EVI route
for Ethernet Tag ID 3. Both BR-21 and BR-22 import the route and
redistribute it with Ethernet Tag ID 2 and new RD and encapsulation
into domain-2. When redistributing, both BR-21 and BR-22 update (if
it existed before) or insert a D-PATH attribute with the domain-id of
domain-3. That prevents BR-21 and BR-22 from redistributing back
into domain-3 each other's route [I-D.sr-bess-evpn-dpath]. BR-11 and
BR-12 import the routes after best path selection and perform the
same process and redistribution into domain-1. I-PE will receive two
routes for Ethernet Tag ID 1, from BR-11 and BR-12, and will perform
best path selection for Ethernet Tag ID 1. Based on the best path
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
selection carried out by I-PE and the BRs along the way, all flows
from CE1 to CE2 will follow, e.g., I-PE, BR-11, BR-21 and E-PE. In
case of failure on any of the BRs in the data path, the routers will
select the alternate route for the Ethernet Tag ID. The same control
plane exchange and traffic flow happen in the reverse direction,
where I-PE becomes the egress PE and E-PE the ingress PE.
As illustrated in Figure 4, this model does not support per-flow load
balancing (all-active multi-homing) to all the BR nodes along the way
from CE to CE.
3.3. EVPN Multi-Homing for Domain Gateway Redundancy (I-ES)
EVPN Multi-Homing procedures can be used on the EVPN Domain Gateways.
For that, an I-ES and its assigned I-ESI will be configured on the
Gateways for multihoming. The I-ES concept is introduced in
[RFC9014], and it is used in this document for EVPN VPWS services.
This I-ES represents a domain to the next domain, in both directions.
Therefore two or more Gateways attached to the same two domains will
use the same I-ESI when advertising routes to the two domains.
The Gateways attached to the same I-ES:
a. Advertise EVPN Ethernet Segment routes and A-D per ES routes for
the I-ES. Those routes are not redistributed beyond the Domain
into which they are originated.
b. Receive Ethernet Segment and A-D per ES routes from the I-ES
peer(s), and use them for I-ES Designated Forwarding (DF)
Election and mass withdraw respectively, as described in
[RFC8214] and [I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis].
c. Set the I-ESI into the EVPN A-D per EVI routes that are
redistributed across domains. P and B flags are set based on the
result of the DF Election [RFC8214].
d. Identify loops if the received EVPN A-D per EVI routes include a
local domain-id in the D-PATH attribute. Also EVPN A-D per EVI
routes that include a local ESI MUST NOT be redistributed to
another domain, irrespective of the presence of the D-PATH
attribute.
Figure 5 illustrates the use of I-ES or EVPN Multi-Homing procedures
in EVPN Domain Gateways. In the example, BR-11 and BR-12 are
attached to I-ES-1 (with ESI-1 as identifier), whereas BR-21 and
BR-22 are attached to I-ES-2 (using ESI-2).
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
A-D per EVI A-D per EVI
RD11 tag1 ESI-1 L111 RD21 tag2 ESI-2 SID21
<------------+ <--------------+
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
| Domain-1 | | Domain-2 | | Domain-3 |
| BR-11 BR-21 A-D per EVI
| +-------+ +-------+ RD4 tag3 vni33
| |+-----+| |+-----+| <---------+
I-PE +--> ||VPWS1||-+---> ||VPWS1||--+ E-PE
+-------+ | |+-----+| | +-> |+-----+| | +-------+
|+-----+|--+ +-------+ | | +-------+ +--> |+-----+|
CE1--||VPWS1|| I-ES1 | | | | | | I-ES2 ||VPWS1||-->CE2
|+-----+|--+ BR-12 | | BR-22 +--> |+-----+|
+-------+ | +-------+ +-|-> +-------+ | +-------+
| | |+-----+| | |+-----+| | |
| +--> ||VPWS1||---+-> ||VPWS1||--+ |
| |+-----+| |+-----+| |
| +-------+ +-------+ |
| SR-MPLS | | SRv6 | | VXLAN |
+------------+ +--------------+ +-------------+
A-D per EVI A-D per EVI
RD12 tag1 ESI-1 L121 RD22 tag2 ESI-2 SID22
<------------+ <--------------+
Figure 5: EVPN Multi-Homing
E-PE advertises an A-D per EVI route for tag3, that gets
redistributed by BR-21/BR-22 first, and BR-11/BR-12 later,
translating the Ethernet Tag ID and encapsulation in each
redistribution. The BR nodes implement the EVPN Multi-Homing
procedures for their own Ethernet Segment as in [RFC8214], and set
the P and B flags accordingly when redistributing the A-D per EVI
routes, to indicate the forwarding mode to the receiving nodes. If
I-ES-1 and I-ES-2 are defined as all-active multi-homing Ethernet
Segments, per-flow load balancing will be performed not only by the
I-PE to the Gateways in domain-1, but also by the Gateways at each
domain of the EVPN VPWS service, as depicted in Figure 5. The same
control plane exchange and traffic flow happen in the reverse
direction, where I-PE becomes the egress PE and E-PE the ingress PE.
I-ES-1 and I-ES-2 are independent of each other, e.g., I-ES-1 can
work in single-active mode, whereas I-ES-2 uses all-active mode. If
that is the case, BR-11 and BR-12 run Designated Forwarded (DF)
Election and BR-11 signals P=1 and B=0 (in the EVPN Layer 2
Attributes extended community) if it is elected as DF, whereas BR-12
signals P=0 and B=1 if elected as Backup DF router. I-PE then sends
all traffic to BR-11, and BR-21/BR-22 send all traffic to BR-11 in
the reverse direction. Since BR-21/BR-22 work in all-active mode,
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
they both signal P=1/B=0 to both, E-PE and BR-11/BR-12. Therefore
traffic from BR-11/BR-12 is sprayed to both BR-21/BR-22, and so is
traffic from E-PE.
The Anycast Gateway and the EVPN Multi-Homing redundancy solutions
can coexist. The Gateways of the same redundancy group MUST
implement the same redundancy method, but different redundancy
Gateway groups MAY implement different methods. In the example, BR-
11/BR-12 constitutes a redundancy group and BR-21/BR-22 constitutes a
different redundancy group.
4. Security Considerations
To be added in a future version.
5. IANA Considerations
None.
6. Acknowledgments
7. Contributors
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
[I-D.sr-bess-evpn-dpath]
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Gautam, M., Brissette, P., and
W. Lin, "Domain Path (D-PATH) for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
Interconnect Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-sr-bess-evpn-dpath-03, 18 April 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sr-bess-evpn-
dpath-03>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-rfc7432bis]
Sajassi, A., Burdet, L. A., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan,
"BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-07, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-
rfc7432bis-07>.
[RFC9014] Rabadan, J., Ed., Sathappan, S., Henderickx, W., Sajassi,
A., and J. Drake, "Interconnect Solution for Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) Overlay Networks", RFC 9014, DOI 10.17487/RFC9014,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9014>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC9062] Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Aldrin, S., Drake, J., and D.
Eastlake 3rd, "Framework and Requirements for Ethernet VPN
(EVPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 9062, DOI 10.17487/RFC9062, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9062>.
[I-D.agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking]
Agrawal, S., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Dawra, G.,
and Z. Li, "SRv6 and MPLS interworking", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EVPN VPWS Gateways April 2023
interworking-11, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-agrawal-
spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-11>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc]
Sajassi, A., Brissette, P., Uttaro, J., Drake, J.,
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-
Connect Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-08, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-
evpn-vpws-fxc-08>.
Authors' Addresses
J. Rabadan (editor)
Nokia
520 Almanor Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
United States of America
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
S. Sathappan
Nokia
520 Almanor Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
United States of America
Email: senthil.sathappan@nokia.com
V. Prabhu
Nokia
600 March Rd
Kanata ON K2K 2T6
Canada
Email: vinod.prabhu@nokia.com
W. Lin
Juniper
United States of America
Email: wlin@juniper.net
P. Brissette
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Rabadan, et al. Expires 21 October 2023 [Page 18]