INTERNET-DRAFT                                         Patrice Brissette
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                          Samir Thoria
                                                             Ali Sajassi
                                                           Cisco Systems

Expires: September 1, 2018                             February 28, 2018

              EVPN multi-homing port-active load-balancing


   The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) technology enables
   the establishment of a logical port-channel connection with a
   redundant group of independent nodes. The purpose of multi-chassis
   LAG is to provide a solution to achieve higher network availability,
   while providing different modes of sharing/balancing of traffic. EVPN
   standard defines EVPN based MC-LAG with single-active and all-active
   multi-homing load-balancing mode. The current draft expands on
   existing redundancy mechanisms supported by EVPN and introduces
   support of port-active load-balancing mode. In the current draft,
   port-active load-balancing mode is also referred to as per interface

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 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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

Copyright and License Notice

   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
   ( 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Multi-Chassis Ethernet Bundles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3. Port-active load-balancing procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4. Algorithm to elect per port-active PE . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5. Port-active over Integrated Routing-Bridging Interface  . . . .  6
   6. Convergence considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7. Overall Advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

1  Introduction

   EVPN, as per [RFC7432], provides all-active per flow load balancing
   for multi-homing. It also defines single-active with service carving
   mode, where one of the PEs, in redundancy relationship, is active per

   While these two multi-homing scenarios are most widely utilized in
   data center and service provider access networks, there are scenarios
   where active-standby per interface multi-homing redundancy is useful
   and required. Main consideration for this mode of redundancy is the
   determinism of traffic forwarding through specific interface rather
   than statistical per flow load balancing across multiple PEs
   providing multi-homing. The determinism provided by active-standby
   per interface is also required for certain QOS features to work.
   While using this mode, customers also expect minimized convergence
   during failures. A new term of load-balancing mode "port-active load-
   balancing" is then defined.

   This draft describes how that new redundancy mode can be supported
   via EVPN.

                 | PE3 |
              |  MPLS/IP  |
              |  CORE     |
            +-----+   +-----+
            | PE1 |   | PE2 |
            +-----+   +-----+
               |         |
               I1       I2
                 \     /
                  \   /

         Figure 1. MC-LAG topology

   Figure 1 shows a MC-LAG multi-homing topology where PE1 and PE2 are
   part of the same redundancy group providing multi-homing to CE1 via
   interfaces I1 and I2. Interfaces I1 and I2 are Bundle-Ethernet
   interfaces running LACP protocol. The core, shown as IP or MPLS
   enabled, provides wide range of L2 and L3 services. MC-LAG multi-
   homing functionality is decoupled from those services in the core and

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

   it focuses on providing multi-homing to CE. With per-port
   active/standby redundancy, only one of the two interface I1 or I2
   would be in forwarding, the other interface will be in standby. This
   also implies that all services on the active interface are in active
   mode and all services on the standby interface operate in standby
   mode. When EVPN is used to provide MC-LAG functionality, we refer to
   it as EVLAG in this draft.

1.1  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Multi-Chassis Ethernet Bundles

   When a CE is multi-homed to a set of PE nodes using the [802.1AX]
   Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), the PEs must act as if they
   were a single LACP speaker for the Ethernet links to form a bundle,
   and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). To achieve this, the
   PEs connected to the same multi-homed CE must synchronize LACP
   configuration and operational data among them. ICCP-based protocol
   has been used for that purpose since a long while. EVLAG simplifies
   greatly that solution. Along with the simplification comes few

   - Links in the Ethernet Bundle MUST operate in all-active load-
   balancing mode

   - Same LACP parameters MUST be configured on peering PEs such as
   system id, port priority, etc.

   Any discrepancies from this list is left for future study.
   Furthermore, mis-configuration and mis-wiring detection across
   peering PEs are also left for further study.

3. Port-active load-balancing procedure

   Following steps describe the proposed procedure with EVLAG to support
   port-active load-balancing mode:

   1- ESI MUST be assigned per access interface as described in
   [RFC7432], which may be auto derived or manually assigned. Access
   interface MAY be a Layer-2 or Layer3 interface.

   2- Ethernet-Segment MUST be configured in port-active load-balancing
   mode on peering PEs for specific interface

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

   3- Peering PEs MAY exchange only Ethernet-Segment route (Route Type-

   4- PEs in the redundancy group leverages DF election defined in
   [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election] to determine which PE keeps the
   port in active mode and which one(s) keep it in standby mode.  While
   the DF election defined in [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election] is per
   <ES, VLAN> granularity, for port-active mode of multi-homing, the DF
   election is done per <ES>.  The details of this algorithm are
   described in Section 4.

   5- DF router MUST keep corresponding access interface in up and
   forwarding active state for that Ethernet-Segment

   6- Non-DF routers MUST bring and keep peering access interface
   attached to it in operational down state. If the interface is running
   LACP protocol, then the non-DF PE MAY also set the LACP state to OOS
   (Out of Sync) as opposed to interface state down. This allows for
   better convergence on standby to active transition.

4. Algorithm to elect per port-active PE

   The default mode of Designated Forwarder Election algorithm remains
   as per [RFC7432] at the granularity of <ES>.

   However, Highest Random Weight (HRW) algorithm defined in [draft-
   ietf-bess-evpn-df-election] is leveraged, and modified to operate at
   the granularity of <ES> rather than per <ES, VLAN>.

   Let Active(ESI) denote the PE that will be the active PE for port
   with Ethernet segment identifier  - ESI. The other PEs in the
   redundancy group will be standby PE(s) for the same port (ES). Ai is
   the address of the PEi and weight() is a pseudorandom function of ESi
   and Ai, Wrand() function defined in [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-
   election] is used as the Weight() function.

   Active(ESI) = PEi:  if Weight(ESI, Ai) >= Weight(ESI, Aj), for all j,
   0 <= I,j <= Number of PEs in the redundancy group. In case of a tie,
   choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the least.

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

5. Port-active over Integrated Routing-Bridging Interface
                 | PE3 |
                 | GW3 |
              |  MPLS/IP  |
              |   CORE    |
            +-----+   +-----+
            | GW1 |   | GW2 |
            |(IRB)|   |(IRB)|
            | PE1 |   | PE2 |
            +-----+   +-----+
               |         | |
               I1       I2 I3
                 \     /   |
                  \   /     \
                  +---+    +---+
                  |CE1|    |CE2|
                  +---+    +---+

         Figure 2. EVPN-IRB Port-active load-balancing

   Figure 2 shows a simple network where EVPN-IRB is used for inter-
   subnet connectivity. IRB interfaces on PE1 and PE2 are configured in
   anycast gateway (same MAC, same IP). CE1 device is multi-homed to
   both PE1 and PE2. The Ethernet-segment load-balancing mode, of the
   connected CE1 to peering PEs, can be of any type e.g. all-active,
   single-active or port-active. CE2 device is connected to a single PE
   (PE2). It operates as single-homed device via an orphan port I3.
   Finally, port-active load-balancing is apply to IRB interface on
   peering PEs (PE1 and PE2). Manual Ethernet-Segment Identifier is
   assigned per IRB interface. ESI auto-generation is also possible
   based on the IRB anycast IP address.

   DF election is performed between peering PE over IRB interface (per
   ESI/EVI). Designed forwarder (DF) IRB interface remains in up state.
   Non-designated forwarder (NDF) IRB interface goes down. Furthermore,
   if all access interfaces connected to an IRB interface are down state
   (failure or admin) OR in blocked forward state(NDF), IRB interface is
   brought down. For example, interface I3 fails at the same time than
   interface I2 (in single-active load-balancing mode) is in blocked
   forwarding state.

   In the example where IRB on PE2 is NDF, all L3 traffic coming from

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

   PE3 is going via PE1. An IRB interface in down state doesn't attract
   traffic from core side. CE2 device reachability is done via an L2
   subnet stretch between PE1 and PE2. Therefore L3 traffic coming from
   PE3 destinated to CE2 goes via GW1 first, then via an L2 connection
   to PE2 and finally via interface I3 to CE2 device.

   There are many reasons of configuring port-active load-balancing mode
   over IRB interface:
   - Ease replacement of legacy technology such VRRP / HSRP

   - Better scalability than legacy protocols

   - Traffic predictability

   - Optimal routing and entirely independent of load-balancing mode
   configured on any access interfaces

6. Convergence considerations

   To improve the convergence, upon failure and recovery, when port-
   active load-balancing mode is used, some advanced synchronization
   between peering PEs may be required. Port-active is challenging in a
   sense that the "standby" port is in down state. It takes some time to
   bring a "standby" port in up-state and settle the network. For IRB
   and L3 services, ARP / MLD cache may be synchronized. Moreover,
   associated VRF tables may also be synchronized. For L2 services, MAC
   table synchronization may be considered. Finally, using bundle-
   Ethernet interface, where LACP is running, is usually a smart thing
   since it provides the ability to set the "standby" port in "out-of-
   sync" state aka "warm-standby".

6. Applicability

   A common deployment is to provide L2 or L3 service on the PEs
   providing multi-homing. The services could be any L2 EVPN such as
   EVPN VPWS, EVPN [RFC7432], etc. L3 service could be in VPN context
   [RFC4364] or in global routing context. When a PE provides first hop
   routing, EVPN IRB could also be deployed on the PEs. The mechanism
   defined in this draft is used between the PEs providing the L2 or L3
   service, when the requirement is to use per port active.

   A possible alternate solution is the one described in this draft is
   MC-LAG with ICCP [RFC7275] active-standby redundancy. However, ICCP
   requires LDP to be enabled as a transport of ICCP messages. There are
   many scenarios where LDP is not required e.g. deployments with VXLAN
   or SRv6. The solution defined in this draft with EVPN does not
   mandate the need to use LDP or ICCP and is independent of the overlay

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 7]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

7. Overall Advantages

   There are many advantages in EVLAG to support port-active load-
   balancing mode. Here is a non-exhaustive list:

   - Open standards based per interface single-active redundancy
   mechanism that eliminates the need to run ICCP and LDP.

   - Agnostic of underlay technology (MPLS, VXLAN, SRv6) and associated
   services (L2, L3, Bridging, E-LINE, etc).

   - Provides a way to enable deterministic QOS over MC-LAG attachment

   - Fully compliant with RFC-7432, does not require any new protocol
   enhancement to existing EVPN RFCs.

   - Can leverage various DF election algorithms e.g. modulo, HRW, etc.

   - Replaces legacy MC-LAG ICCP-based solution, and offers following
   additional benefits:

      - Efficiently supports 1+N redundancy mode (with EVPN using BGP
      RR) where as ICCP requires full mesh of LDP sessions among PEs in
      redundancy group

      - Fast convergence with mass-withdraw is possible with EVPN, no
      equivalent in ICCP

   - Customers want per interface single-active redundancy, but don't
   want to enable LDP (e.g. they may be running VXLAN or SRv6 in the
   network). Currently there is no alternative to this.

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 8]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018

8  Security Considerations

   The same Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] are valid for
   this document.

9  IANA Considerations

   There are no new IANA considerations in this document.

10  References

10.1  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, <>.

   [RFC7275]  Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
              Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
              Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
              (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275, DOI
              10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-

10.2  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-

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <>.

Authors' Addresses

   Patrice Brissette
   Cisco Systems

   Samir Thoria
   Cisco Systems

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018                [Page 9]

INTERNET DRAFT      draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa    February 28, 2018


   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems

Patrice Brissette      Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 10]