BESS Working Group P. Brissette, Ed.
Internet-Draft A. Sajassi
Intended status: Standards Track L. Burdet
Expires: May 7, 2020 Cisco Systems
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
November 4, 2019
EVPN Multi-Homing Mechanism for Layer-2 Gateway Protocols
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-05
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 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 May 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. The two-ESI solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. RFC7432 Remote PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Handling of Topology Change Notification (TCN) . . . . . . . 7
5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. EVPN MAC-Flush Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. EVPN Inter-subnet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
1.2. Terms and Abbreviations
AC: Attachment Circuit
BUM: Broadcast, Unknown unicast, Multicast
DF: Designated Forwarder
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
REP-AG: Resilient Ethernet Protocol Access Gateway
TCN: Topology Change Notification
2. Solution
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
+---+
|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.
The L2GW protocol is used for loop avoidance. In above example, the
loop is broken on the right side of CE2.
2.1. Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode
PE1 and PE2 are peering PEs in a redundancy group, and sharing a same
ESI. 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
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
filtering of [RFC7432] is disabled for Single-Flow-Active Ethernet
segments.
Finally, PE3 behaves according to EVPN rules for traffic to/from 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 each of 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.
2.2. Backwards compatibility
2.2.1. The two-ESI solution
As background, an alternative solution which achieves some, but not
all, of the requirements exists and is backwards compatible with
[RFC7432]:
On the PE1 and PE2,
a. A single-homed (different) non-zero ESI, or zero-ESI, is used for
each PE;
b. With no remote Ethernet-Segment routes received matching local
ESI, each PE will be designated forwarder for all the local
VLANs;
c. Each L2GW PE will send Ethernet AD per-ES and per-EVI routes for
its ESI if non-zero; and
d. When the L2GW PEs receive a MAC-Flush notification (STP TCN,
G.8032 mac-flush, LDP MAC withdrawal etc.), they send an update
of the Ethernet AD per-EVI route with the MAC Mobility extended
community defined in Section 6 and a higher sequence number.
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
While this solution is feasible, it is considered to fall short of
the requirements listed in Section 3, namely for all aspects meant to
achieve fast-convergence.
2.2.2. RFC7432 Remote PE
A PE which receives an Ethernet AD per ES route with the Single-Flow-
Active bit set in the ESI-flags, and which does not support/
understand this bit, SHALL discard the bit and continue operating per
[RFC7432] (All-Active). The operator should understand the usage of
single-flow-active load-balancing mode else it is highly recommended
to use the two-ESI approach as described in section 2.2.1.
The remote PE3 which does not support Single-Flow-Active redundancy
mode as described, will ECMP traffic to peering PEs PE1 and PE2 in
the example topology above (Figure 1), per [RFC7432], Section 8.4
aliasing and load-balancing rules. PE1 and PE2, which support the
Single-Flow-Active redundancy mode MUST setup sub-optimal Layer-2
forwarding and sub-optimal Layer-3 routing towards the PE at which
the flow is currently active.
Thus, while PE3 is ECMP (on average) 50% of the traffic to the
incorrect PE in [RFC7432] operation, PE1 and PE2 will handle this
gracefully in Single-Flow-Active mode and redirect across peering
pair of PEs appropriately.
No extra route or information is required for this. The [RFC7432]
and [EVPN-IRB] route advertisements are sufficient.
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 is responsible for operationally setting the
forwarding state for each VLAN.
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
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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 Ethernet
AD per-ES and per Ethernet AD per-EVI routes advertisement/
withdraw, as well as MAC and MAC+IP advertisement, remains as
explained in [RFC7432] and [EVPN-IRB].
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 }
The backup paths so created, operate as in [RFC7432] section 8.4
where the backup PE of the redundancy group MAY immediately be
selected for forwarding upon detection of a specific subset of
failures: Ethernet AD per-ES route withdraw, Active PE loss of
reachability (via IGP detection). An Ethernet AD per-EVI withdraw
MUST NOT result in automatic switching to the backup PE as only a
subset of the hosts may be changing reachability to the Backup PE,
and the remote cannot determine which.
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.
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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.
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 Where an access protocol relies on TCN BPDU propagation to all
participant nodes, 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.
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
5. ESI-label Extended Community Extension
In order to support the new EVPN load-balancing mode (single-flow-
active), the ESI-label extended community is updated.
The 1 octet flag field, part of the ESI Label extended community, is
modified 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
Figure 2: ESI Label extended community
6. EVPN MAC-Flush Extended Community
The MAC mobility BGP Extended community, is required for the TCN
procedures and MAC-Flushing. The well-known MAC-Flush procedure from
[RFC7623] is borrowed, only for Ethernet AD per-EVI routes.
In this Single-Flow-Active mode, the MAC-Flush Extended Community is
advertised along with Ethernet AD per EVI routes upon reception of
TCN 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 re-advertised 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.
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAC-Flush Extended Community
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.
However, leveraging the same-ESI on both L2GW PEs enables ARP/ND
synchronization procedures which are defined for All-Active
redundancy in [EVPN-IRB]. In steady-state, on PE2 where a host is
not locally-reachable the routing table will reflect PE1 as the
destination. However, with ARP/ND synchronization based on a common
ESI, the ARP/ND cache may be pre-populated with the local AC as
destination for the host, should an AC failure occur on PE1. This
achieves fast-convergence.
When a hosts moves to PE2 from the PE1 L2GW peer, the MAC mobility
sequence number is incremented to signal to remote peers that a
'move' has occurred and the routing tables must be updated to PE2.
This is required when an Access Protocol is running where the loop is
broken between two CEs in the access and the L2GWs, and the host is
no longer reachable from the PE1-side but now from the PE2-side of
the access network.
8. Conclusion
EVPN style="symbols"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].
9. Security Considerations
The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and
[EVPN-IRB] remain valid for this document.
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
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
[EVPN-IRB]
Sajassi, A., "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN",
2019.
[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>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
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 (editor)
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EVPN MH for L2-GW Protocols November 2019
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Luc Andre Burdet
Cisco Systems
Ottawa, ON
Canada
Email: lburdet@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Montreal, QC
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Brissette, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 12]