INTERNET-DRAFT Patrice Brissette
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Ali Sajassi
Luc Andre Burdet
Cisco Systems
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Expires: April 23, 2019 October 20, 2018
EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-03
Abstract
The existing EVPN multi-homing load-balancing modes defined are
Single-Active and All-Active. Neither of these multi-homing
mechanisms are appropriate to support access networks with Layer-2
Gateway protocols such as G.8032, MPLS-TP, STP, etc. These Layer-2
Gateway protocols require a new multi-homing mechanism defined in
this draft.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN) . . . . . . . . 7
5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. EVPN MAC Flush Extcomm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
1. Introduction
Existing EVPN multi-homing mechanisms of Single-Active and All-Active
are not sufficient to support access Layer-2 Gateway protocols such
as G.8032, MPLS-TP, STP, etc.
These Layer-2 Gateway protocols require that a given flow of a VLAN
(represented by {MAC-SA, MAC-DA}) to be only active on one of the PEs
in the multi-homing group. This is in contrast with Single-Active
redundancy mode where all flows of a VLAN are active on one of the
multi-homing PEs and it is also in contrast with All-Active
redundancy mode where all L2 flows of a VLAN are active on all PEs in
the redundancy group.
This draft defines a new multi-homing mechanism "Single-Flow-Active"
which defines that a VLAN can be active on all PEs in the redundancy
group but a single given flow of that VLAN can be active on only one
of the PEs in the redundancy group. In fact, the carving scheme,
performed by the DF(Designated Forwarder) election algorithm for
these L2 Gateway protocols, is not per VLAN but rather for a given
VLAN. A selected PE in the redundancy group can be the only
Designated Forwarder for a specific L2 flow but the decision is not
taken by the PE. The loop-prevention blocking scheme occurs in the
access network.
EVPN multi-homing procedures need to be enhanced to support
Designated Forwarder election for all traffic (both known unicast and
BUM) on a per L2 flow basis. This new multi-homing mechanism also
requires new EVPN considerations for aliasing, mass-withdraw, fast-
switchover and [EVPN-IRB] as described in the solution section.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2 Acronyms
AC : Attachment Circuit
BUM : Broadcast, Unknown unicast, Multicast
DF : Designated Forwarder
EVLAG : EVPN LAG (equivalent to EVPN MC-LAG)
GW : Gateway
L2 Flow : a given flow of a VLAN, represented by (MAC-SA, MAC-DA)
L2GW : Layer-2 Gateway
G.8032 : Ethernet Ring Protection
MST-AG : Multi-Spanning Tree Access Gateway
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
REP-AG : Resilient Ethernet Protocol Access Gateway
TCN : Topology Change Notification
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
2. Solution
+---+
|CE4|
+---+
|
|
+-----+
| PE3 |
+-----+
+-----------------+
| |
| MPLS/IP |
| CORE |
| |
+-----------------+
+-----+ +-----+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+-----+ +-----+
AC1| |AC2
| |
+---+ +---+
|CE1| |CE3|
+---+ +---+
| |
| +---+ |
+----|CE2|----/---+
+---+
Figure 1 EVPN network with L2 access GW protocols
Figure 1. shows a typical EVPN network with an access network running
a L2GW protocol; typically one of the following: G.8032, STP, MPLS-
TP, etc. The L2GW protocol usually starts from AC1 (on PE1) up to AC2
(on PE2) in an open "ring" manner. AC1 and AC2 interfaces of PE1 and
PE2 are participants in the access protocol. PE1 and PE2 are peering
PEs (EVLAG capable) in a redundancy group sharing a same ESI. The
L2GW protocol is used for loop avoidance. In above example, the loop
is broken on the right side of CE2. In the proposed Single-Flow-
Active mode, PE1 and PE2 'Access Gateway' load-balancing mode shares
similarities with both Single-Active and All-Active. DF election must
not result in blocked ports or portions of the access may become
isolated. Additionally, the reachability between CE1/CE2 and CE3 is
achieved with the forwarding path through the EVPN MPLS/IP core side.
Thus, the ESI-Label filtering of [RFC7432] is disabled for Single-
Flow-Active Ethernet segments.
Finally, PE3 behaves according to EVPN rules for traffic to/from
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
PE1/PE2. Peering PE, selected per L2 flow, is chosen by the L2GW
protocol in the access, and is out of EVPN control. From PE3 point of
view, some of the L2 flows coming from PE3 may reach CE3 via PE2 and
some of the L2 flows may reach CE1/CE2 via PE1. A specific L2 flow
never goes to both peering PEs. Therefore, aliasing cannot be
performed by PE3. That node operates in a single-active fashion for
these L2 flows. The backup path which is also setup for rapid
convergence, is not applicable here. For example, in Figure 1, if a
failure happens between CE1 and CE2, L2 flows coming from CE4 behind
PE3 destined to CE1 still goes through PE1 and shall not switch to
PE2 as a backup path. On PE3, there is no way to know which L2 flow
specifically is affected. During the transition time, PE3 may flood
until unicast traffic recovers properly.
3. Requirements
The EVPN L2GW framework for L2GW protocols in Access-Gateway mode,
consists of the following rules:
o Peering PEs MUST share the same ESI.
o The Ethernet-Segment DF election MUST NOT be performed and
forwarding state MUST be dictated by the L2GW protocol. In Access
Gateway mode, both PEs are usually in forwarding state. In fact,
access protocol guarantees drive that state.
o Split-horizon filtering is NOT needed because L2GW protocol
ensures there will never be loop in the access network. The
forwarding between peering PEs MUST also be preserved. In figure
1, CE1/CE2 device may need reachability with CE3 device. ESI-
filtering capability MUST be disabled. PE MUST NOT advertise
corresponding ESI-label to other PEs in the redundancy group, or
apply it if it is received.
o ESI-label BGP-extcomm MUST support a new multi-homing mode named
"Single-Flow-Active" corresponding to the single-active behaviour
of [RFC7432], applied per flow.
o Upon receiving ESI-label BGP-Extcomm with the single-flow-active
load-balancing mode, remote PE MUST:
- Disable ESI-Label processing
- Disable aliasing (at Layer-2 and Layer-3 [EVPN-IRB])
o The Ethernet-Segment procedures in the EVPN core such as per
ES/EAD and per EVI/EAD routes advertisement/withdraw, as well as
MAC and MAC+IP advertisement, remains as explained in [RFC7432]
and [EVPN-IRB].
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
o For fast-convergence, remote PE3 MAY set up two distinct backup
paths on a per-flow basis:
- { PE1 active, PE2 backup }
- { PE2 active, PE1 backup }
o MAC mobility procedures SHALL have precedence in Single-Flow-
Active for tracking host reachability over backup path procedure.
4. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN)
In order to address rapid Layer-2 convergence requirement, topology
change notification received from the L2GW protocols must be sent
across the EVPN network to perform the equivalent of legacy L2VPN
remote MAC flush.
The generation of TCN is done differently based on the access
protocol. In the case of STP (REP-AG) and G.8032, TCN gets generated
in both directions and thus both of the dual-homing PEs receive it.
However, with STP (MST-AG), TCN gets generated only in one direction
and thus only a single PE can receive it. That TCN is propagated to
the other peering PE for local MAC flushing, and relaying back into
the access.
In fact, PEs have no direct visibility on failures happening in the
access network neither on the impact of those failures over the
connectivity between CE devices. Hence, both peering PEs require to
perform a local MAC flush on corresponding interfaces.
There are two options to relay the access protocol's TCN to the
peering PE: in-band or out-of-band messaging. The first method is
better for rapid convergence, and requires a dedicated channel
between peering PEs. An EVPN-VPWS connection MAY be dedicated for
that purpose, connecting the Untagged ACs of both PEs. The latter
choice relies on a new MAC flush extended community in the Ethernet
Auto-discovery per EVI route, defined below. It is a slower method
but has the advantage of avoid the usage of a dedicated channel
between peering PEs.
Peering PE, upon receiving TCN from access, MUST:
o As per legacy VPLS, perform a local MAC flush on the access-facing
interfaces. An ARP probe is also sent for all hosts previously
locally-attached.
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
o Advertise per EVI/EAD route along with a new MAC-flush BGP Extended
Community in order to perform a remote MAC flush and steer L2 traffic
to proper peering PE. The sequence number is incremented by one as a
flushing indication to remote PEs.
o Ensure MAC and MAC/IP route re-advertisement, with incremented
sequence number when host reachability is NOT moving to peering PE.
This is to ensure a re-advertisement of current MAC and MAC/IP which
may have been flushed remotely upon MAC Flush extcomm reception. In
theory, it should happen automatically since peering PE, receiving
TCN from the access, performs local MAC flush on corresponding
interface and will re-learn that local MAC or MAC/IP at ARP probe
reply.
o When MST-AG runs in the access, a dedicated EVPN-VPWS connection
MAY be used as an in-band channel to relay TCN between peering PEs.
That connection may be auto-generated or can simply be directly
configured by user.
5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension
In order to support the new EVPN load-balancing mode (single-flow-
active), the ESI-label extcomm is extended. The 1 octet flag field,
as part of the ESI-label Extcomm, is updated as follow:
Each ESI Label extended community is encoded as an 8-octet value, as
follows:
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=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x01 | Flags(1 octet)| Reserved=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved=0 | ESI Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Low-order bit: [7:0]
[2:0]- 000 = all-active,
001 = single-active,
010 = single-flow-active,
others = unassigned
[7:3]- Reserved
6. EVPN MAC Flush Extcomm
A new BGP Extended community, similar to MAC mobility BGP-extcomm, is
required by the TCN procedure. It may get advertised along with
Ethernet Auto-discovery routes (per EVI/EAD) upon reception of TCN
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
from the access. When this extended community is used, it indicates,
to all remote PEs that all MAC addresses associated with that EVI/ESI
are "flushed" i.e. unresolved. They remain unresolved until remote PE
receives a route update / withdraw for those MAC addresses; the MAC
may be readvertised by the same PE, or by another, in the same ESI.
The sequence number used is of local significance from the
originating PE, and is not used for comparison between peering PEs.
Rather, it is used to signal via BGP successive MAC Flush requests
from a given PE.
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=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x?? | Reserved = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding
EVPN Inter-subnet forwarding procedures in [EVPN-IRB] works with the
current proposal and does not require any extension. Host routes
continue to be installed at PE3 with a single remote nexthop, no
aliasing.
8. Conclusion
EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 gateway Protocols solves a
true problem due to the wide legacy deployment of these access L2GW
protocols in Service Provider networks. The current draft has the
main advantage to be fully compliant with [RFC7432] and [EVPN-IRB].
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
9. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [EVPN-
IRB] remain valid for this document.
10. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for valuable review and
inputs with respect to access protocol deployments related to
procedures proposed in this document.
11. IANA Considerations
A new allocation of Extended Community Sub-Type for EVPN is required
to support the new EVPN MAC flush mechanism.
12. References
12.1 Normative References
[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>.
12.2 Informative 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>.
Authors' Addresses
Patrice Brissette
Cisco Systems
EMail: pbrisset@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
EMail: sajassi@cisco.com
Luc Andre Burdet
Cisco Systems
EMail: lburdet@cisco.com
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto October 20, 2018
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
EMail: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Patrice Brissette Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 11]